DVD Talk
Oscars doubling best-picture nominees to 10 [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Oscars doubling best-picture nominees to 10


stingermck
06-24-09, 01:36 PM
Ok took a slight break from my GI Joe/Transformer threading and just saw this:

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. – The Academy Awards are doubling the number of best-picture nominees from five to 10.

Academy President Sid Ganis said at a news conference that the academy's board of governors made the decision to expand the slate. Ganis said the decision will open the field up to more worthy films for the top prize at Hollywood's biggest party.

The change takes effect with next year' Oscars on March 7.

The move is a return to Oscar traditions of the 1930s and '40s, when 10 nominees were common.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_en_mo/us_oscars;_ylt=AgTfcrfjNo3FsX4U1EZTgQdxFb8C;_ylu=X3oDMTJhdnYwcjF2BGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNjI0L3VzX29zY2F ycwRjcG9zAzEEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3luX3RvcF9zdG9yeQRzbGsDb3NjYXJzZG91Ymxp



Damn. 10 just seems like a lot. So now we will have 9 movies to bitch about getting shafted instead of 4.

Travis McClain
06-24-09, 01:52 PM
I'm not sure I understand the benefit of this. Five nominees or ten, there's still just the one winner. Given that plenty of other movies have always been nominated, just not receiving enough votes to make it to the final five, I'm not sure that I see where this will affect anything substantial. What this means is that, to set up an additional five clips during the presentation of the award, they've decided to drop one of the brief segments elsewhere. It also means that five more movies will be able to slap "Academy Award Nominee for Best Picture" on their DVD and Blu Ray releases. Great for marketing, unless the kind of people who are impressed by that kind of thing feel like it's diluted.

Drop
06-24-09, 01:55 PM
Well it gives the voters more options, so it could actually make a difference on what gets best picture.

devilshalo
06-24-09, 02:02 PM
And fuck some of the other catagories.. good job! Bad enough they lessened the number of contenders from 5 to 3 in the Best Visual Effects catagory over the years. Heck, one year it was only 2... AND THE FUCKING TALKING PIG WON?!

How about upping it to 5 nominees for Best Animated Feature? Or Best Make Up? or Best Original Song?

BravesMG
06-24-09, 02:08 PM
This is crap, pure and simple. Just another reason to studios to slap the "Nominated for Best Picture" tag on more mainstream films.

Doughboy
06-24-09, 02:12 PM
While part of me likes the idea that great films such as The Dark Knight will have a better shot at a Best Picture nod(even if this move is a year too late), overall I wish they'd left it at 5 nominees. Imagine how much longer the telecast will be when they have to show clips from an additional 5 movies.

geicos27
06-24-09, 02:13 PM
I'm guessing this is due to the outrage of The Dark Knight being screwed last year.

JaxComet
06-24-09, 02:13 PM
They may have trouble finding 10 good movies in a one year timeframe.... :D

Ash Ketchum
06-24-09, 02:21 PM
Ok took a slight break from my GI Joe/Transformer threading and just saw this:

BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. – The Academy Awards are doubling the number of best-picture nominees from five to 10.


The move is a return to Oscar traditions of the 1930s and '40s, when 10 nominees were common.

Yeah, but they actually made enough good movies back then to justify that many nominees.

jmu878
06-24-09, 02:25 PM
I honestly haven's seen a single movie yet this year that's worthy of a statue. Then again, I thought all 5 nominees last year were mediocre and Slumdog's sweep was a travesty. I guess we'll see what happens.

Dr Mabuse
06-24-09, 02:28 PM
I'm not sure I understand the benefit of this.

Money.

This is crap, pure and simple. Just another reason to studios to slap the "Nominated for Best Picture" tag on more mainstream films.

Yep.

pinata242
06-24-09, 02:31 PM
I can't wait until the year (this?) that they can't justifiably fill 10 slots without opening themselves up to ridicule.

GenPion
06-24-09, 02:33 PM
I hope this means better movies getting Best Picture nominations. Lately, the Academy Awards have been a total joke.

Doughboy
06-24-09, 02:36 PM
I'm guessing this is due to the outrage of The Dark Knight being screwed last year.

In part. I'm sure it's because the more diverse the field of nominees is, the better they figure the ratings will be. Very few people gave a crap about any of the Best Picture nominees this past year.

Cardiac161
06-24-09, 02:40 PM
If they allow 10 nominees for Best Picture, then it should only be fair that they also allow 10 nominees for the major awards like acting, screenplay, editing, & directing.

But then this would mean the awards show would be more than 10 hours.

Geofferson
06-24-09, 02:55 PM
This is crap, pure and simple. Just another reason to studios to slap the "Nominated for Best Picture" tag on more mainstream films.
Exactly what I was thinking. Not a fan of this stunt.

MoviePage
06-24-09, 02:59 PM
This is out of the blue. I don't think anyone had even heard a whisper of this being floated around as a possibility. I agree with others that it's mostly a move to benefit marketing and ratings.

It's great that movies like The Dark Knight and Wall-E will be able to make it in (and you can now safely bet your house that Up will be Pixar's first Best Picture-nominated film, especially given this year's overall pickings), but it also means that plenty of ridicule-worthy titles will make it in as well. But then, how's that different from the usual? How can there possibly be a worse slate of BP nominees than this year's?

Bandoman
06-24-09, 03:23 PM
This is crap, pure and simple. Just another reason to studios to slap the "Nominated for Best Picture" tag on more mainstream films.

This

stingermck
06-24-09, 03:24 PM
Hmm I wonder besides TDK what wouldve made up the list of 10 this year.

The Antipodean
06-24-09, 03:28 PM
Too many! 6 or even 8 I can see, but 10? Yeesh.

dx23
06-24-09, 03:28 PM
Wait until you see next years DVDs and Blu-rays of films like The Soloist with the Best Picture Nominee plastered all over it. It was 4 films before, now it will be 9 with that ugly crap on its artwork.

RichC2
06-24-09, 03:31 PM
Every movie in early '10 will have a "Best Picture Nominee" label.

starseed1981
06-24-09, 03:32 PM
Lost most of my respect for the Oscars once they gave "Crash" best picture. Just imo.

Supermallet
06-24-09, 03:32 PM
Clearly they're anticipating the big Oscar push for Star Trek. ;)

JohnSlider
06-24-09, 03:35 PM
While part of me likes the idea that great films such as The Dark Knight will have a better shot at a Best Picture nod(even if this move is a year too late), overall I wish they'd left it at 5 nominees. Imagine how much longer the telecast will be when they have to show clips from an additional 5 movies.

:lol:

RagingBull80
06-24-09, 04:18 PM
I can't wait until the year (this?) that they can't justifiably fill 10 slots without opening themselves up to ridicule.
This is what I'm thinking. The newest "_____ Movie" will end up being nominated just to fill a spot.

:lol:
I don't get what's funny.

Mr. Cinema
06-24-09, 04:23 PM
Hmm I wonder besides TDK what wouldve made up the list of 10 this year.
Doubt most certainly would have...and should have anyways.

The Wrestler and Revolutionary Road would likely be 2 more choices in addition to Wall-E. Even though it had awful acting from the supporting cast, I think Gran Torino could have been in there as well. It was released so late in the game that it had no buzz going into the nominations, even though it cleaned up at the box office.

RichC2
06-24-09, 04:23 PM
This is what I'm thinking. The newest "_____ Movie" will end up being nominated just to fill a spot.


I don't get what's funny.

He didn't think it was great, so be it. There are a lot that disagree and there are a lot of people that agree. I thought Wall-E was a poor movie but the oscar hype for that flick was deafening.

This really is a pointless change, add one or two don't double the damn thing.

Doubt most certainly would have...and should have anyways.

The Wrestler and Revolutionary Road would likely be 2 more choices in addition to Wall-E.

That's 4.

In the interest of ratings, it probably would have been The Wrestler, Rev Road, Doubt, The Dark Knight and Wall-E.

Double_Oh_7
06-24-09, 04:25 PM
Stupid. Why not just nominate EVERY movie for Best Picture... same logic.

RichC2
06-24-09, 04:27 PM
Haha yeah it can be like those movies that put the Cannes logo because they were "in competition."

Drexl
06-24-09, 04:31 PM
I can't say I like it, but as long as they're keeping the Best Director nominations to 5, you can bet that at least 4 of those films would have been nominated for BP if it had 5 noms. And, the winner will at least be nominated in that category (if not win it).

I think the reasoning behind this is to try to get more people to watch the telecast. It probably won't change how they vote, but if more people tune in thinking a summer blockbuster or animated movie has a shot, it's a win for them.

RagingBull80
06-24-09, 04:31 PM
He didn't think it was great, so be it.
I figured that. I just didn't know that bashing The Dark Knight was still the cool thing to do.

GenPion
06-24-09, 04:31 PM
The Dark Knight IS a great film. It was robbed a nomination, and it could have even deservedly won Best Picture. Slumdog Millionaire was a good film, to be sure, but was it even Danny Boyle's best -- let alone better than the Dark Knight? No, it wasn't. And yet it won almost everything this last year. I think Christopher Nolan is one of the best film-makers currently working and his achievement should have been recognized.

Solid Snake
06-24-09, 04:37 PM
Whoa whoa whoa. I love TDK. I'll argue it needed a best pic nomination. But..better than Slumdog? No. Slumdog was ,to what an American audience would see, a exotic take of the standard guy gets girl story in a foreign world that we don't know. I saw Slumdog and I was like...fuck...TDK got topped by this. It was fresh, vibrant, and exotic for my eyes to see a take on a multiply told many times over tale.

Mr. Cinema
06-24-09, 04:37 PM
The Dark Knight IS a great film. It was robbed a nomination, and it could have even deservedly won Best Picture. Slumdog Millionaire was a good film, to be sure, but was it even Danny Boyle's best -- let alone better than the Dark Knight? No, it wasn't. And yet it won almost everything this last year. I think Christopher Nolan is one of the best film-makers currently working and his achievement should have been recognized.
This is one question we'll never get answered. What did Stephen Daldry and Ron Howard do directing wise that was more difficult than anything Chris Nolan did?

Supermallet
06-24-09, 04:39 PM
Slumdog was intensely overrated, and as someone said, not even Danny Boyle's best film. If it weren't for Sunshine, I'd say it was his worst film. It wasn't even as good as Frost/Nixon, let alone The Dark Knight or The Wrestler.

sauce07
06-24-09, 04:40 PM
I like it. I don't care if 5 more movies have a "Nominated for Best Picture" stamp on it, the DVD cover art will still suck. The voting pool is going to be more spread out, anything has a legitimate shot at winning. A lot of people only go see small movies if they are nominated for Best Pic, this would bring more business to movies like Before the Devil Knows You're Dead which got snubbed.

TGM
06-24-09, 04:53 PM
is this the NHL playoffs?

PopcornTreeCt
06-24-09, 05:30 PM
Stupid. Why not just nominate EVERY movie for Best Picture... same logic.

Exactly. The same people that vote for the nominees vote for the winners.

10 movies is garbage. They should have an asterisk next to it, when 20 years from now people are like "Star Trek remake was nominated for Best Picture?"

This is the worst idea since giving the Oscar to Slumdog Millionaire.

Doctor Gonzo
06-24-09, 05:43 PM
just another ploy by oscar to boost sagging ratings - and a too-late fix for a Dark Knight snub.

I see more comedy, a sci-fi flick or maybe a super hero movie or action/adventure getting a bone tossed to it - "welcome to the party!" - and still not having a chance to actually win over more snob fare like slumdog.

They are smart, however - knowing you are more likely to tune in if your favorite movie makes the cut.

Groucho
06-24-09, 05:45 PM
I'm guessing this is due to the outrage of The Dark Knight being screwed last year.What outrage? Outside of the Internet fanboys, there was none.

chris_sc77
06-24-09, 05:55 PM
Well I wont be watching if a disney/pixar film gets nominated. Thats all i know. That will fucking disgust me.

dino88
06-24-09, 06:00 PM
I'm not sure I understand the benefit of this.

It's an easy explanation, more money for the machine that is Hollywood. Why not give more promotion (and the label "Best Picture nominee") to more films? It will definitely boost ticket and dvd sales, no question.

Hmm I wonder besides TDK what wouldve made up the list of 10 this year.

Revolutionary Road (hopefully...I thought this was in the top 3)
The Wrestler
...and In Bruges probably still would have gotten the shaft.

The Dark Knight IS a great film. It was robbed a nomination, and it could have even deservedly won Best Picture. Slumdog Millionaire was a good film, to be sure, but was it even Danny Boyle's best -- let alone better than the Dark Knight?

Slumdog was intensely overrated, and as someone said, not even Danny Boyle's best film. If it weren't for Sunshine, I'd say it was his worst film. It wasn't even as good as Frost/Nixon, let alone The Dark Knight or The Wrestler.

I'm not sure how it "not being Danny Boyle's best" is at all relevant to comparing Slumdog and TDK, or whether or not Slumdog deserved to win. Slumdog was up against the films made in 2008, not Danny Boyle's filmography. Using this logic, you can say that Sean Penn didn't deserve to win Best Actor for Milk because he was better in Dead Man Walking. And Martin Scorsese should be banned altogether from the Academy Awards because he'll never make anything that tops Goodfellas.

Solid Snake
06-24-09, 06:00 PM
You don't think they make films good enough for the slot? I mean, personally....I'd always keep it in the animated section...but they've pretty good at their skills.

Hokeyboy
06-24-09, 06:06 PM
:lol:
TELL me about it. THE DARK KNIGHT got some of the worst reviews ever for a mainstream motion picture.

RichC2
06-24-09, 06:08 PM
Well I wont be watching if a disney/pixar film gets nominated. Thats all i know. That will fucking disgust me.

Sheesh it's been 17 years, give it a rest.

mountain_dew
06-24-09, 06:10 PM
Great, so now instead of nominating 5 films no one has ever seen they double it.

Supermallet
06-24-09, 06:17 PM
I'm not sure how it "not being Danny Boyle's best" is at all relevant to comparing Slumdog and TDK, or whether or not Slumdog deserved to win. Slumdog was up against the films made in 2008, not Danny Boyle's filmography. Using this logic, you can say that Sean Penn didn't deserve to win Best Actor for Milk because he was better in Dead Man Walking. And Martin Scorsese should be banned altogether from the Academy Awards because he'll never make anything that tops Goodfellas.

You're right, Slumdog was up against the other pics of 2008 (and even then it's still baffling that it was nominated, let alone won), but as icing on the cake, it's one of Boyle's worst movies.

Groucho
06-24-09, 06:19 PM
Just because you and your teeny-bopper pals didn't catch at the megaplex doesn't mean that "nobody" saw it.

Gizmo
06-24-09, 06:26 PM
This is crap, pure and simple. Just another reason to studios to slap the "Nominated for Best Picture" tag on more mainstream films.

Bingo! We will get the wondering re-releases on DVD/Blu over and over again now. Sigh.

Gizmo
06-24-09, 06:27 PM
Since Twilight destroyed the MTV Movie Awards I expect it to be in the top 10.

jmu878
06-24-09, 06:38 PM
It's an easy explanation, more money for the machine that is Hollywood. Why not give more promotion (and the label "Best Picture nominee") to more films? It will definitely boost ticket and dvd sales, no question.



Revolutionary Road (hopefully...I thought this was in the top 3)
The Wrestler
...and In Bruges probably still would have gotten the shaft.





I'm not sure how it "not being Danny Boyle's best" is at all relevant to comparing Slumdog and TDK, or whether or not Slumdog deserved to win. Slumdog was up against the films made in 2008, not Danny Boyle's filmography. Using this logic, you can say that Sean Penn didn't deserve to win Best Actor for Milk because he was better in Dead Man Walking. And Martin Scorsese should be banned altogether from the Academy Awards because he'll never make anything that tops Goodfellas.

What do you mean? The Oscars are notorious for snubbing films that deserve to win and giving make up statues later. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Batman 3 walks away with a best pic statue if its anything comparable to TDK.

For the record also, Scorsese should probably have at least four statues right now (Taxi Driver, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Departed.) Ordinary People & Dances with Wolves...seriously? At least Rocky is respectable but Bull still wipes the floor with it.

I'm just real curious to what nine other movies are gonna fill out the slot. I guess UP is a shoe in, but what the hell else is coming out that can get a nom? Public Enemies? Inglourious Basterds? Maybe Scorsese can grab a second statue from Shutter Island. Who knows.

Red Dog
06-24-09, 06:38 PM
How incredibly stupid.

wirefan
06-24-09, 06:44 PM
In addition to the obvious money/advertising implications it is also a resume/backslapping maneuver.

Just think:
I produced Best Picture nominees in 5 consecutive years, or starred in them, or was a gopher on the set. It's just more self-congratulatory crap, which I can only hope will backfire and diminish the "prestige" (?) of being a best picture nomination. Just think about 5 years from now: "Transformers 2... that was an Oscar best film nominee in 2010... really? Oh that was when they were nominating everything."

Still, it's a rather curious move because it is unclear how much "best picture nominee" actually generates in terms of ticket or DVD sales. It may also make the late in the year Oscar machine backfire as you will either have movies earlier in the year taking away from the process or just have twice as much politicking compressed into the same time period making the end of the year pump and dump that much harder.

wm lopez
06-24-09, 06:47 PM
I think they are doing this because when movie goers see advertizing that it's nominated for an Oscar they will go see it.

Supermallet
06-24-09, 06:49 PM
Just because they're now offering 10 slots doesn't mean Transformers 2 will be on it.

mcnabb
06-24-09, 06:55 PM
Havent watched the Oscars for about 10 years, as the quality of movies has really dropped this decade. I think once Shakespeare in Love won for the 1998 Best Picture, I realized I was wasting my time watching this show.

Mr. Cinema
06-24-09, 07:24 PM
Havent watched the Oscars for about 10 years, as the quality of movies has really dropped this decade. I think once Shakespeare in Love won for the 1998 Best Picture, I realized I was wasting my time watching this show.
1998 is almost the same time for me. I still held out hope until 2000 when Traffic won Director, Editing, Screenplay, and Supporting Actor. Then it vanished when that somehow didn't equal a Picture win.

Daytripper
06-24-09, 07:30 PM
Well I wont be watching if a disney/pixar film gets nominated. Thats all i know. That will fucking disgust me.


Here we fucking go again.

SethDLH
06-24-09, 07:32 PM
I don't understand why they just don't nominate films they feel worthy of winning the award each year, no matter how many or few there may be. A set number will always make it so that deserving films get snubbed or underserving films get nominations.

GoldenJCJ
06-24-09, 07:37 PM
Can't say I really understand the decision...However, if they open the category to foreign films...

JumpCutz
06-24-09, 07:41 PM
Just because they're now offering 10 slots doesn't mean Transformers 2 will be on it.

That goes without saying.

Daytripper
06-24-09, 08:05 PM
I don't see the big deal here. First, they did this back in the beginning as mentioned. And yes, probably more and better quality films were released. Plus, critics do a Top 10 best of list at the end of each year.

stingermck
06-24-09, 08:20 PM
Explaining the shift, Academy Motion Picture Arts and Sciences President Sid Ganis says, "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.

"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."

An average of 10 films competed annually for the top prize for the first 16 years of the Oscars and the last classic to win gold after beating out nine other movies was Casablanca in 1943.

Ganis adds, "Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going allow Academy voters to recognise 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."

wirefan
06-24-09, 08:29 PM
I don't see the big deal here. First, they did this back in the beginning as mentioned. And yes, probably more and better quality films were released. Plus, critics do a Top 10 best of list at the end of each year.

They also didn't have as many awards category 'back in the beginning' either. Somehow, this getting back to its roots spin rings a bit hollow and I'm a bit stunned that they think anyone will buy it.

And if you look at some of the crap that makes critics Top 10 lists, I'm not sure that's the example they want to follow.

Daytripper
06-24-09, 08:52 PM
They also didn't have as many awards category 'back in the beginning' either. Somehow, this getting back to its roots spin rings a bit hollow and I'm a bit stunned that they think anyone will buy it.

And if you look at some of the crap that makes critics Top 10 lists, I'm not sure that's the example they want to follow.

What do you mean they didn't have as many awards category?

Also, if by "crap" you mean non-commerical films or box-office hits, then that's mostly what the Oscars nominate anyway.

Doctor Gonzo
06-24-09, 09:07 PM
the first year, 1927-28, only three films were nominated for best picture. Eight films were nominated in 31-32, ten the next year, TWELVE in 33-34 and 1935, so the academy has always been all over the place.

NitroJMS
06-24-09, 09:18 PM
Can't say I really understand the decision...However, if they open the category to foreign films...

They already are eligibile. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon scored a Best Picture nom back in 2001, but it is a rare feat, much like an animated film getting nominated.

Dean Kousoulas
06-24-09, 09:39 PM
After last year's Oscar's telecast I more or less have given up on the Academy. This bonehead decision is just the icing on the cake.

Perhaps they want to make sure every Holocaust or WWII picture gets a Best Picture nominee? ;)

RichC2
06-24-09, 09:41 PM
Fine by me as long as Inglourious Basterds is up there :lol:

wirefan
06-24-09, 09:42 PM
What do you mean they didn't have as many awards category?

Of the 24 current awards, 5 didn't exist pre-1947, 8 didn't exist pre-1940... there were a few awards in the 30's that had a few years of run but overall there were fewer award types in the days they are trying to "get back to"

Also, if by "crap" you mean non-commerical films or box-office hits, then that's mostly what the Oscars nominate anyway.

What I was trying to say is that just because critics decide to have top 10 lists, doesn't mean the Oscars should.... most critics also do not separate out awards for foreign films, documentaries or animated films like the Oscars. And there is a bunch of crap that shows up on these lists... the Oscar nominees already have some questionable choices - adding 5 so they potentially avoid slighting one or two films in a given year is ridiculous. So a movie gets left off the nominee list in an odd year...because of that risk they need to double the nominee list EVERY year? How do folks see this as anything but a commercially driven decision

Bottom line you don't need a 10 movie list to get the best picture... if a movie is 7th or 8th on the nominee list, then it probably is not really the best picture to begin with.

Solid Snake
06-24-09, 10:19 PM
Fine by me as long as Inglourious Basterds is up there :lol:

I was about to the say the same thing. I hope Tarantino gets some love from the Academy if Basterds is as good as I hope it is. I mean...it's a WWII film using 8 Jew soldiers out to kick Nazi ass. It's like Munich + Saving Private Ryan...in Tarantino style.

Drexl
06-24-09, 10:56 PM
I was bored, so I checked this out. If I'm not mistaken, only 3 films have won Best Picture without getting a Best Director nomination. The last was Driving Miss Daisy in 1989, and you have to go back to 1932 for the previous one, Grand Hotel. Wings was the other, and they had separate categories for dramatic and comedy directing that first year.

So, at least half of the 10 nominees will be considered very long shots right off the bat. It will be interesting to see if a movie can crack this in the coming years, if they stick with it.

mcnabb
06-24-09, 11:01 PM
1998 is almost the same time for me. I still held out hope until 2000 when Traffic won Director, Editing, Screenplay, and Supporting Actor. Then it vanished when that somehow didn't equal a Picture win.

Yeah, the last ten years have been pretty pathetic for Best Oscar Winners:


2000- Gladiator - good, fun movie, but Best Picture?
2001- A Beautiful Mind - good movie, but a payback to Ron Howard for Apollo 13.
2002- Chicago - don't need to explain this one.
2003- Return of the King - winner because of the achievement of trilogy for the past 3 years.
2004- Million Dollar Baby - I liked it, but WAY overrated.
2005- Crash? I think this beat Brokeback Mountain?
2006- The Departed - Another good movie, but more a lifetime achievment award for Marty as he should have won for Goodfellas and Raging Bull.
2007- No Country for Old Men - Solid movie
2008- Slumdog Millionaire - Honestly haven't seen it yet.


Wow, what a terrible decade. Making 10 best movie selections wont make a difference with the crap out today.

Solid Snake
06-24-09, 11:06 PM
No Country For Old Men
Slumdog Millionaire

GoldenJCJ
06-24-09, 11:32 PM
They already are eligibile. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon scored a Best Picture nom back in 2001, but it is a rare feat, much like an animated film getting nominated.

I did not know this. I thought that's why they had the Best Foreign Language Film category. Same for the animated films, Beauty and the Beast was pre-Best Animated Film category.

With those two categories I wouldn't expect any foreign or animated films to pop up under The Best Picture category at all.

dino88
06-24-09, 11:42 PM
No Country For Old Men
Slumdog Millionaire

Yes, those are both names of films.:hscratch:

Hammer99
06-24-09, 11:55 PM
Yeah, but they actually made enough good movies back then to justify that many nominees.Amen.

The Antipodean
06-25-09, 01:06 AM
It's curious - has ANYBODY outside the Academy itself said this was a good idea? Seems like they would have floated it at least. I see this lasting a year or two tops before they suddenly backtrack.

wm lopez
06-25-09, 01:32 AM
I'm sure we will be trying to figure out which are the bottom 5 when the time comes.

DeltaSigChi4
06-25-09, 01:37 AM
:lol: @ mediocre Dark Knight being nominated for Best Picture.

Maybe at the MTV® Movie Awards. :rolleyes:

E

hardercore
06-25-09, 02:08 AM
I'm sure we will be trying to figure out which are the bottom 5 when the time comes.With this new format, the likelihood of a Best Director nominee not also having his/her film nominated as Best Picture is almost nought. The 'bottom 5' can be easily gleaned from those films that missed the support of a directing nomination.

PopcornTreeCt
06-25-09, 02:38 AM
So, at least half of the 10 nominees will be considered very long shots right off the bat. It will be interesting to see if a movie can crack this in the coming years, if they stick with it.

The number 10 doesn't mean anything though as it'll still come down 2 or 3 movies. You know how there's always 2 nominated movies every year that have no chance of winning Best Picture? Well, now there's going to be 7!

Supermallet
06-25-09, 03:30 AM
:lol: @ mediocre Dark Knight being nominated for Best Picture.

Maybe at the MTV® Movie Awards. :rolleyes:

E

:lol: @ mediocre Slumdog Millionaire.

Maybe it could win at the out of touch Oscars. :rolleyes:

DeltaSigChi4
06-25-09, 03:50 AM
Slumdog is about thirty - to - thirty four times more quality than TDK. Get over it. :thumbsup:

E

Supermallet
06-25-09, 03:53 AM
OK, now I really am laughing.

stingermck
06-25-09, 07:55 AM
But Batman has a great stand up game, with fierce punches in TDK ;)

stingermck
06-25-09, 10:01 AM
Studios wary of Oscar's new best-picture rule

...But from a different perspective, longtime Oscar maven Tony Angellotti, who now consults for Universal and Disney Animation, thinks the move could well dilute "both the quality and the impact of the award. I would imagine the studios are grieving over this. They'll have to spend more money and not likely see a return -- just what they don't need in a recession."

In fact, one studio executive compared the Academy bombshell to getting doused with a bucket of cold water. He confided that he has enough trouble every awards season figuring out whom they have to satisfy with an Oscar campaign and which talent they can safely neglect or do less for.

"Were we behind this move by the Academy? No way," one top studio executive said. "We're going to have to spend more money in marketing campaigns for one or more unlikely winner, and mostly there's very little financial upside even when we do win. All of this takes enormous time and energy, and now it's extra time and energy."

Another studio executive shook his head in dismay. "This likely means more filmmakers will want to see their movies open late in the year so they can still be in release during the crucial period between nominations (February 2) and the actual telecast (March 7). It's simply going to clog up the distribution pipeline or mean we have to consider re-releasing one title or another. Don't even mention what it might do to DVD campaigns."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090625/media_nm/us_oscars_reaction

MoviePage
06-25-09, 10:01 AM
Hmm I wonder besides TDK what wouldve made up the list of 10 this year.

The Dark Knight
Doubt
Wall-E

and pick 2 from:
The Wrestler
Revolutionary Road
Gran Torino

MoviePage
06-25-09, 10:04 AM
The number 10 doesn't mean anything though as it'll still come down 2 or 3 movies. You know how there's always 2 nominated movies every year that have no chance of winning Best Picture? Well, now there's going to be 7!

Yeah, it's got to be bad enough knowing your movie is going to come in 4th or 5th in voting. Imagine having to get all dressed up, talk to countless airhead reporters in the hot sun, and then sit uncomfortably through a show that lasts for hours, all the while knowing you're probably 8th, 9th, or 10th on the list. :lol:

MoviePage
06-25-09, 10:07 AM
Also, it's interesting that this will take the required number of votes to win Best Picture down to a theoretical 10.01%. Could shake things up a bit and lead to some upsets.

Brent L
06-25-09, 10:13 AM
Slumdog is about thirty - to - thirty four times more quality than TDK. Get over it. :thumbsup:

E

I would like to know the exact equation that you used to come to that so specific " thirty - to - thirty four times" range.

If this change leads to flicks like TDK and In Bruges being more recognized in this type of setting, not to mention all of the other movies that are released every single year that never have a shot at being nominated, then I'm all for this news.

The only down side, like Conan mentioned last night as a joke, is that it will likely make the show that much longer for real.

I think they should have added a category for stunt work before doing this though.

RichC2
06-25-09, 10:46 AM
Slumdog is about thirty - to - thirty four times more quality than TDK. Get over it. :thumbsup:

E

How so? I liked both movies a good deal, but there was no great divide in quality between the two.

islandclaws
06-25-09, 11:14 AM
10 is too many. Why not expand every category to 10, in that case? It doesn't make any sense. 5 is a good number, and 10 isn't likely to produce any more worthy choices that 5 can't.

Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.
06-25-09, 11:24 AM
This is going to make AMC's "Best Picture Showcase" unbearable next year.

Dr. Henry Jones, Jr.
06-25-09, 11:25 AM
Also, it really should be a maximum of up to 10 nominees if there are worthy films. Not 10 every year when there are clunkers.

Brent L
06-25-09, 11:31 AM
That's true, they don't need a set number period. Maybe cap it at 10, then make it so only the films over a certain percentage are actually then picked to be the official nominees.

I'd be more ok with that, or something like it.

d2cheer
06-25-09, 01:31 PM
Lost most of my respect for the Oscars once they gave "Crash" best picture. Just imo.

Same here but not for Crash, I stopped watching the year SPR was robbed by some Shakespear in Love movie...

I like to see who is nominated for actor and actress but the picture catagory is a joke most years.

Supermallet
06-25-09, 03:59 PM
Just because they're now offering 10 slots doesn't mean Transformers 2 will be on it.
That goes without saying.

Not really...


Just think about 5 years from now: "Transformers 2... that was an Oscar best film nominee in 2010... really? Oh that was when they were nominating everything."

MoviePage
06-25-09, 04:06 PM
Given that the first Transformers didn't even grab a very well-deserved Best Visual Effects Oscar, losing to The Golden Compass no less, and especially given the general reaction to Transformers 2, I think it's fairly safe to assume that it will not be one of the final 10. At least not outside of Bizarro universe.

(And yes, I know this wasn't thrown out as a serious possibility. At least I hope not.)

Brent L
06-25-09, 04:12 PM
We should think back over the past few years and try to think up which films would make up the remaining 10 had this been going on then.

mcnabb
06-25-09, 04:41 PM
It was bad enough when Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan, but the biggest joke was Julia Roberts taking home Best Actress a few years later.

chris_sc77
06-25-09, 04:50 PM
It was bad enough when Shakespeare in Love won over Saving Private Ryan, but the biggest joke was Reese Witherspoon taking home Best Actress a few years later.

fixed.

Supermallet
06-25-09, 05:00 PM
No, Julia Roberts is definitely worse than Reese Witherspoon, especially since Ellen Burstyn was nominated for Requiem For A Dream that same year.

wirefan
06-25-09, 05:13 PM
I love the studio quotes above:

"Were we behind this move by the Academy? No way," one top studio executive said. "We're going to have to spend more money in marketing campaigns for one or more unlikely winner, and mostly there's very little financial upside even when we do win. All of this takes enormous time and energy, and now it's extra time and energy."

Here's an idea... how about not campaigning at all and letting the best movies simply be chosen, instead of campaigned for? I'm sorry who is responsible for all the ridiculous campaigning? No one is forcing the studios to campaign for an award (that apparently, according to them, has little financial upside)...

Another studio executive shook his head in dismay. "This likely means more filmmakers will want to see their movies open late in the year so they can still be in release during the crucial period between nominations (February 2) and the actual telecast (March 7). It's simply going to clog up the distribution pipeline or mean we have to consider re-releasing one title or another. Don't even mention what it might do to DVD campaigns."

Here's an idea, how about not forcing Academy Award hopefuls into the last month of the year? Again, the studios are complaining about a problem that they created!

You know, I was originally against this idea, but now that I think about it I think they should expand the nominee list to 30-50 movies... This could potentially crush, or at least limit, the Oscar campaigning (especially if a film that isn't campaigned for wins during several years), limit the force feeding of Oscar hopefuls into the last month of the year, and completely devalue the "best picture nominee" advertising. Could you imagine the best picture not having an Oscar campaign and simply be chosen on merit? And not having a limited release in December but being released in say the summer?

dino88
06-25-09, 05:42 PM
Yeah, it's got to be bad enough knowing your movie is going to come in 4th or 5th in voting. Imagine having to get all dressed up, talk to countless airhead reporters in the hot sun, and then sit uncomfortably through a show that lasts for hours, all the while knowing you're probably 8th, 9th, or 10th on the list. :lol:

Oh my god, that sounds like hell. Maybe once Israel & Palestine hear about this they'll finally put down the guns, knowing how much worse off they could be. I mean could you imagine getting paid millions and then having to wear designer clothes (which people pay you to wear), have to talk to people for an hour (all the while in the sun!), and then sit in a theater for 4...more...hours. Why would they shut down Guantanamo and not the Oscars? Fucked up world we live in.

Ponda Boba
06-25-09, 06:20 PM
This is good news.

GoldenJCJ
06-25-09, 07:03 PM
^ well, you've convinced me.

wirefan
06-25-09, 07:08 PM
Not really...

You do realize the Transformers 2 nominee talk was hyperbole?
(Apparently not?)

dhmac
06-25-09, 07:29 PM
I think it's also interesting that the Oscar ceremony has moved back into March, after all the fanfare over its move to February a few years back.

Jaymole
06-26-09, 08:17 AM
Well, from the rave reviews so far, I would say the Hurt Locker has a strong chance of being nominated....that leaves 9 slots left to fill.

dino88
06-26-09, 09:06 AM
Well, from the rave reviews so far, I would say the Hurt Locker has a strong chance of being nominated....that leaves 9 slots left to fill.

Nope, not a chance. Decent movie, but nowhere near Oscar worthy. Plus, it will be hard for a film released in 2008 to be nominted this year.

RichC2
06-26-09, 09:36 AM
Hurt Locker is a 2009 film in the US.

Wasn't released in 2008 in the US, which is all that matters (unless it were a foreign film representing a specific country, at which point it would have been ineligable past 2008.)

MoviePage
06-26-09, 09:38 AM
Oh my god, that sounds like hell. Maybe once Israel & Palestine hear about this they'll finally put down the guns, knowing how much worse off they could be. I mean could you imagine getting paid millions and then having to wear designer clothes (which people pay you to wear), have to talk to people for an hour (all the while in the sun!), and then sit in a theater for 4...more...hours. Why would they shut down Guantanamo and not the Oscars? Fucked up world we live in.

Wrong forum. We're talking about the Oscars here, not world politics. If you have a bad day at the office, do you say "It was awful, but it's ok because Israel and Palestine have it so much worse!"?

MoviePage
06-26-09, 09:39 AM
The Hurt Locker is indeed eligible for a Best Picture nomination next year, and will likely be included in the final 10.

PopcornTreeCt
06-26-09, 12:21 PM
The Hurt Locker directed by "Point Break" Bigelow. We'll see.

I wonder what Disney/Pixar will do with Up. Surely, it certainly could be nominated with 10 nominees. But it really shouldn't bother.

Mr. Cinema
06-26-09, 04:21 PM
I think Public Enemies will be another choice.

Mr. Cinema
06-26-09, 04:23 PM
I guess this means we'll get twice the amount of Hugh Jackman dancing. *barf*

MoviePage
06-26-09, 04:43 PM
I guess this means we'll get twice the amount of Hugh Jackman dancing. *barf*

Maybe this year Debbie Allen can choreograph a dance number for all TEN nominated movies! For The Hurt Locker, the dancers can tap around a pretend mine field.

lamphorn
06-27-09, 06:49 PM
The Dark Knight IS a great film. It was robbed a nomination, and it could have even deservedly won Best Picture. Slumdog Millionaire was a good film, to be sure, but was it even Danny Boyle's best -- let alone better than the Dark Knight? No, it wasn't. And yet it won almost everything this last year. I think Christopher Nolan is one of the best film-makers currently working and his achievement should have been recognized.
The Dark Knight was mediocre at best. The only thing worthwhile was Heath Ledger's performance. I had no problem with him winning Best Supporting because his acting transcended the godawful writing and directing of that film. I've seen the thing twice and with the exception of Ledger's scenes, find the movie to be boring as piss.
Same here but not for Crash, I stopped watching the year SPR was robbed by some Shakespear in Love movie...

I won't argue with you about Crash, which sucked ass... but I think the Shakespeare in Love win was a rare time that the Oscars got it right, and had the balls not to give the expected obligatory World War II greatest generation nostalgia award.

Saving Private Ryan was lame. The first 20 minutes were inspired and the craftsmanship of the production was outstanding... but Spielberg went in with a crappy script and the movie is pretty forgettable as a result.

On the other hand, Shakespeare in Love had a tight, clever, and entertaining script that didn't insult the viewer's intelligence. I was happy that the Academy stepped outside of its usual comfort zone and rewarded a well-made comedy (which hadn't happened since Annie Hall).

GoldenJCJ
06-28-09, 11:47 PM
A couple more changes to the Oscars. I'm not sure if this deserves it own thread or not but I figured it'll do just fine here.

http://www.9news.com/life/entertainment/article.aspx?storyid=118466&catid=151

Rules for the 82nd Oscar show next March will require that at least one song must achieve a minimum score of 8.25 on a scale of 6 to 10 in voting by members of the academy's music branch.

"We're trying to improve the quality," said composer Bruce Broughton, who heads the music branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. "There's been a lot of talk about the songs in films, the lack of memorability compared to songs in the past, the almost forgetability of some of them. ... This is an attempt to really make the songs as good as possible."

In another significant change for next year's show, the academy is moving its honorary Oscars out of the Academy Awards ceremony itself and presenting them at a separate event.

The two changes come days after the academy made its most drastic Oscar change in decades, doubling the number of best-picture nominees from five to 10.

The music branch has about 230 members, who rate songs after viewing them in a marathon screening or on a DVD compilation of the tunes as they appear in the films.

If no song achieves the minimum score, there will be no best-song Oscar awarded. If only one song scores that well, then it and the tune with the next-highest score will be the category's two nominees. The number of nominees in the category can range from two to five depending on how many hit the minimum score.

Broughton said while the change sets minimum standards songs must meet, he doubted that there would be a year when the category would be scrapped because no tunes rated highly enough.

Starting this awards season, honorary Oscars for career achievement will be presented at a black-tie dinner in November, along with the academy's Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award and Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.

Academy overseers said that will allow more time to pay proper tribute to recipients without crowding those awards into the Oscar ceremony, which often draws criticism for a running time that has topped four hours some years.

The academy board of governors "noticed that subtracting the honoraries from the broadcast would help reduce its length, but that really wasn't the motivation that was driving the change," said Bruce Davis, the academy's executive director.

Sid Ganis, academy president, said creating a separate event will insure "that each honoree will be given his or her full due."

Roybq
06-29-09, 01:29 AM
If no song achieves the minimum score, there will be no best-song Oscar awarded. If only one song scores that well, then it and the tune with the next-highest score will be the category's two nominees.


Does this mean an Oscar winning song like "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp" would have trouble in the future?

William Fuld
06-29-09, 02:17 AM
Does this mean an Oscar winning song like "It's Hard Our Here For a Pimp" would have trouble in the future?

:fc:

Drexl
06-29-09, 02:30 AM
If they want to cut down on time, why don't they just reduce the "banter" and silly skits instead? Other than the obituaries, is there really a need for any montages?

Iron_Giant
06-29-09, 02:38 AM
Clearly they're anticipating the big Oscar push for Star Trek. ;)

Hey, that was one of the best films I have seen all year.

Iron_Giant
06-29-09, 02:44 AM
The Dark Knight was mediocre at best. The only thing worthwhile was Heath Ledger's performance. I had no problem with him winning Best Supporting because his acting transcended the godawful writing and directing of that film. I've seen the thing twice and with the exception of Ledger's scenes, find the movie to be boring as piss.

I won't argue with you about Crash, which sucked ass... but I think the Shakespeare in Love win was a rare time that the Oscars got it right, and had the balls not to give the expected obligatory World War II greatest generation nostalgia award.

Saving Private Ryan was lame. The first 20 minutes were inspired and the craftsmanship of the production was outstanding... but Spielberg went in with a crappy script and the movie is pretty forgettable as a result.

On the other hand, Shakespeare in Love had a tight, clever, and entertaining script that didn't insult the viewer's intelligence. I was happy that the Academy stepped outside of its usual comfort zone and rewarded a well-made comedy (which hadn't happened since Annie Hall).

Now hold on, Annie Hall instead of Star Wars, that was the 1st time I had watch the A. Awards Show - And I am still "Mad as Hell" at them!!!!

That was the show that started all the backlash to those who are truly out of touch with "Main Stream Movie Goers".

Iron_Giant
06-29-09, 02:53 AM
What are the top ten movies for 2009 do you see up for the Award?:

1. UP (Because it deserves it)
2. The Soloist (Because Hollywood loves these kinds of movies)
3. Away We Go (Because Hollywood loves these kinds of movies)
4. Public Enemies (Because Hollywood loves there actors)
5-10 I DO NOT know about any other pics coming out Hollywood likes

Drexl
06-29-09, 03:05 AM
What are the top ten movies for 2009 do you see up for the Award?:

1. UP (Because it deserves it)
2. The Soloist (Because Hollywood loves these kinds of movies)
3. Away We Go (Because Hollywood loves these kinds of movies)
4. Public Enemies (Because Hollywood loves there actors)
5-10 I DO NOT know about any other pics coming out Hollywood likes

It's way too early to tell. I think they'll just nominate the kinds of movies they would have nominated anyway, just more of them. The only reason I think Up would have a shot is because Pixar has received screenplay nominations the last two years. I don't see this necessarily opening up more movies from earlier in the year, other than just from the sheer number of nominees.

Roger Ebert had an idea about nominating 5 films from the first half of the year, then the second half, then narrowing that down to 5 final nominees, but that's not going to be the case here.

kstublen
06-29-09, 03:21 AM
Yeah, if Up doesn't get at least a nomination with five more available spots, then it seems the Academy will never nominate an animated feature for Best Picture.

Jaymole
06-29-09, 07:50 AM
Now hold on, Annie Hall instead of Star Wars, that was the 1st time I had watch the A. Awards Show - And I am still "Mad as Hell" at them!!!!

That was the show that started all the backlash to those who are truly out of touch with "Main Stream Movie Goers".


You Star Wars fans are unbelievable...So both George Lucas AND the Academy raped your childhood:)

jmu878
06-29-09, 08:33 AM
The Dark Knight was mediocre at best. The only thing worthwhile was Heath Ledger's performance. I had no problem with him winning Best Supporting because his acting transcended the godawful writing and directing of that film. I've seen the thing twice and with the exception of Ledger's scenes, find the movie to be boring as piss.

I won't argue with you about Crash, which sucked ass... but I think the Shakespeare in Love win was a rare time that the Oscars got it right, and had the balls not to give the expected obligatory World War II greatest generation nostalgia award.

Saving Private Ryan was lame. The first 20 minutes were inspired and the craftsmanship of the production was outstanding... but Spielberg went in with a crappy script and the movie is pretty forgettable as a result.

On the other hand, Shakespeare in Love had a tight, clever, and entertaining script that didn't insult the viewer's intelligence. I was happy that the Academy stepped outside of its usual comfort zone and rewarded a well-made comedy (which hadn't happened since Annie Hall).

The Dark Knight was phenomenal and its a joke that it didn't walk away with best picture. There is also no way in hell that Nolan shouldn't of gotten a best director. The movie was revolutionary with its use of imax cameras and established the Joker as one of the greatest movie villains of all time. (Sorry Jack) Someone explain to me what Danny Boyle had to do that was harder than coordinating the flipping of a semi without the use of green screen. Slumdog=pretentious garbage. At the very least they could have given it to a movie with some balls like the Wrestler instead of the Oscar bait they chose. Also btw...Shakespeare in Love was the greatest Oscar tragedy since Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas.

RichC2
06-29-09, 08:41 AM
Yeah, if Up doesn't get at least a nomination with five more available spots, then it seems the Academy will never nominate an animated feature for Best Picture.

Considering they already have (less than 20 years ago no less), it's hard to say never, but never another? Perhaps.

I personally don't think Up is a strong enough movie to get a best pic nom (way too Saturday morning cartoon for a chunk of the runtime), though a lot also hyped Wall-E for the same distinction (also wasn't a fan.) If it had a chance it would have had to of been The Incredibles or Finding Nemo.

But then, with this 10 nomination thing, Pixar will likely end up with a Best Pic nom every year to come.

MoviePage
06-29-09, 09:39 AM
Love the new rules about the Best Song category. The less of those, the better as far as I'm concerned.

Mixed feelings on taking the honorary awards out of the show. That will save time and make it move faster, but that means no more moments like those featuring Peter O'Toole, Elia Kazan, Stanley Donen, Charlie Chaplin, etc. Those awards have provided some (maybe even most) of the absolute best moments of the show's history.

Mr. Cinema
06-29-09, 09:47 AM
The most useless category is Best Song. I hope no song achieves a high enough score to ever be selected.

Mr. Cinema
06-29-09, 09:48 AM
The Soloist as a Best Picture nominee? I pray we get enough choices to where that doesn't get in. I seriously doubt it'll get selected. Not only because no one cares about it, but it was also dumped back in April. That movie is already forgotten.

spainlinx0
06-29-09, 03:29 PM
The Dark Knight was phenomenal and its a joke that it didn't walk away with best picture. There is also no way in hell that Nolan shouldn't of gotten a best director. The movie was revolutionary with its use of imax cameras and established the Joker as one of the greatest movie villains of all time. (Sorry Jack) Someone explain to me what Danny Boyle had to do that was harder than coordinating the flipping of a semi without the use of green screen. Slumdog=pretentious garbage. At the very least they could have given it to a movie with some balls like the Wrestler instead of the Oscar bait they chose. Also btw...Shakespeare in Love was the greatest Oscar tragedy since Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas.

Seriously?

Giles
06-29-09, 03:32 PM
The most useless category is Best Song. I hope no song achieves a high enough score to ever be selected.

one would expect this year's offering of film 'songs' to be lame.

Arthur Dent
06-29-09, 03:38 PM
Considering they already have (less than 20 years ago no less), it's hard to say never, but never another? Perhaps.

I personally don't think Up is a strong enough movie to get a best pic nom (way too Saturday morning cartoon for a chunk of the runtime), though a lot also hyped Wall-E for the same distinction (also wasn't a fan.) If it had a chance it would have had to of been The Incredibles or Finding Nemo.

But then, with this 10 nomination thing, Pixar will likely end up with a Best Pic nom every year to come.
I enjoyed Up, but I'd be disappointed if it were to receive a Best Pic nod. I thought it was merely good. Ratatouille, on the other hand, was excellent.

Groucho
06-29-09, 03:40 PM
The music branch has about 230 members, who rate songs after viewing them in a marathon screening or on a DVD compilation of the tunes as they appear in the films.Otherwise known as the "B5Erik Process".

Supermallet
06-29-09, 05:33 PM
Now hold on, Annie Hall instead of Star Wars, that was the 1st time I had watch the A. Awards Show - And I am still "Mad as Hell" at them!!!!

That was the show that started all the backlash to those who are truly out of touch with "Main Stream Movie Goers".

Yeah, but Annie Hall is a better movie than Star Wars. :shrug:

William Fuld
06-29-09, 06:14 PM
And Annie Hall wasn't outside the mainstream either.

Jaymole
06-29-09, 06:45 PM
And Annie Hall wasn't outside the mainstream either.


True for that time, but for today's audience, the film would be outside the mainstream.

jmu878
06-29-09, 07:54 PM
Seriously?

dead serious

wirefan
06-29-09, 09:18 PM
Think about the logic of the Best Song change:
*If no song meets the minimum score, no award is given - makes sense as presumably the scoring measures the quality of the song and they don't want to diminish the award by giving it out to something that scores very low (or below minimum standards)
*If only 1 song meets the minimum, the next best song is nominated no matter what the score... and presumably EITHER of those 2 songs could win the Oscar... in which case you'll potentially have a song which doesn't meet the minimum score win an Oscar - but wasn't the point of the change to avoid that specific situation?

And I'm not a huge fan of the Honorary Award... but isn't the point to give tribute to the person? Apparently the most prestigious awards show in the industry and in front of the person's peers, not to mention a huge global audience, is the wrong forum for this? I'm all for cutting the show down (especially as they now need to pimp 5 more movies), but is there nothing else to cut? If the award is not significant enough to cut the mustard for the show yet best makeup can...why have it at all?

Or am I over-analyzing this and it's just a case where the honorary award is not going to anyone significant this year? :)

Trevor
06-29-09, 09:56 PM
dead serious

And quite funny. The Dark Knight was very entertaining, best in that regard of the year perhaps, but no better than the 8th or so best Film of the year.

Mr. Cinema
06-29-09, 10:06 PM
Doubt topped my list last year, but almost anything, including TDK, should have gotten in over the awful snoozefest The Reader. That was bland with a capital B. Of course, Stephen Daldry was the director, so we shouldn't expect anything less.

Someone remind me again, how was his direction in The Reader better than Chris Nolan in TDK? I forgot...

Jaymole
06-30-09, 08:53 AM
Since these decisions are all about ratings, just make the damn award a viewer choice event and get done with it.

The Honorary award was always a highlight of the show for me...a really bad decision but then again I'm not a typical viewer (I actually know the people given the honorary award).

The only way I see 10 deserving films being nominated is if they eliminate the Best Foeigh Film award (which is a joke anyway), and make it easier for a foreign film to be nominated for best picture.

Iron_Giant
06-30-09, 05:20 PM
True for that time, but for today's audience, the film would be outside the mainstream.

I am not saying "Annie Hall" is/was a bad movie, I loved the movie the 1st time I saw it. But a LARGE amount of the population knew that "Star Wars" was ripped off because of Hollywoods sticking it's nose in the air toward it.

"Lord of Rings RotK" finally winning Best Picture has taken the Monkey off the back for Scf-Fi fans, even though "TFotR" should have won 2 years earlier. I hope the A Awards will only look at the quality of the show, if it is a Blockbuster or not.

In my humble thinking, "Lion King" should won the A.Award. One of the greatest animated movies ever.

lamphorn
06-30-09, 05:22 PM
Now hold on, Annie Hall instead of Star Wars, that was the 1st time I had watch the A. Awards Show - And I am still "Mad as Hell" at them!!!!

That was the show that started all the backlash to those who are truly out of touch with "Main Stream Movie Goers".
Annie Hall is a much better film than Star Wars. Star Wars was fun, but the pacing, writing, and direction was amateurish at best. Lucas has done 2 worthwhile things in his career- American Grafitti, and allowing someone else to direct Empire Strikes Back.

The Oscars was never supposed to reflect a mirror back at the "Main Stream Movie Goer". It's supposed to reflect the judgment of film professionals. If you want the Main Stream Moviegoer Awards, check out People's Choice, or the MTV Movie Awards.

lamphorn
06-30-09, 06:33 PM
The Dark Knight was phenomenal and its a joke that it didn't walk away with best picture. There is also no way in hell that Nolan shouldn't of gotten a best director. The movie was revolutionary with its use of imax cameras and established the Joker as one of the greatest movie villains of all time. (Sorry Jack) Someone explain to me what Danny Boyle had to do that was harder than coordinating the flipping of a semi without the use of green screen. Slumdog=pretentious garbage. At the very least they could have given it to a movie with some balls like the Wrestler instead of the Oscar bait they chose. Also btw...Shakespeare in Love was the greatest Oscar tragedy since Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas.
Great, so give an Oscar to the stunt and SFX people who actually coordinated and pulled off the truck flip. What Danny Boyle did that was harder than telling your stunt guys to flip a truck was tell a decent story in a coherent and interesting manner. The Dark Knight was booooorrring, and Christian Bale's performance was laughably bad. Heath Ledger was good and I'm glad he got the Oscar, but really, Tim Burton's Batman films tower over Nolan's forgettable noise and angst.

This is an honest question, is Michael Bay your favorite director? Because you seem to judge a film's quality on explosions and stunts.

Doubt topped my list last year, but almost anything, including TDK, should have gotten in over the awful snoozefest The Reader. That was bland with a capital B. Of course, Stephen Daldry was the director, so we shouldn't expect anything less.

Someone remind me again, how was his direction in The Reader better than Chris Nolan in TDK? I forgot...
I'm no Stephen Daldry fan, but The Reader was far and away better and more entertaining than The Dark Knight. It also made sense and wasn't full of Matrix Reloaded-inspired babbling of pop-philosophy horseshit.

Since these decisions are all about ratings, just make the damn award a viewer choice event and get done with it.

The Honorary award was always a highlight of the show for me...a really bad decision but then again I'm not a typical viewer (I actually know the people given the honorary award).

The only way I see 10 deserving films being nominated is if they eliminate the Best Foeigh Film award (which is a joke anyway), and make it easier for a foreign film to be nominated for best picture.

I can't argue too much with this. I'm also pissed that they're ruining the show bit by bit every year. Now we won't have those moments, like Warren Beatty's drunken rambling masterpiece of a trainwreck speech, or Altman's beautiful farewell. They keep pumping up the musical numbers and Cirque de Soleil horseshit and keep stripping out what was interesting about the Oscars.

My contention is the ratings keep going down BECAUSE they don't let the winners speak anymore and the show is basically a shitty variety show now.

I am not saying "Annie Hall" is/was a bad movie, I loved the movie the 1st time I saw it. But a LARGE amount of the population knew that "Star Wars" was ripped off because of Hollywoods sticking it's nose in the air toward it.

"Lord of Rings RotK" finally winning Best Picture has taken the Monkey off the back for Scf-Fi fans, even though "TFotR" should have won 2 years earlier. I hope the A Awards will only look at the quality of the show, if it is a Blockbuster or not.

In my humble thinking, "Lion King" should won the A.Award. One of the greatest animated movies ever.
Sci Fi fans really need to pull their noses out of their navals. Just because all they need to be entertained is pointy-eared wizards and spaceships doesn't mean that's the stuff great films are made of. Sci-Fi fans demanding that every fantasy/space opera wins an award is like smut fans demanding that Basic Instinct 2 be nominated. Just because Harry Knowles (who's sold his critical soul for set-visits, free blu-rays, and amazon.com kickbacks) declares something a masterpiece doesn't mean it is.

When you're overly married to a genre, your judgment is askew.

jmu878
07-01-09, 11:51 AM
Great, so give an Oscar to the stunt and SFX people who actually coordinated and pulled off the truck flip. What Danny Boyle did that was harder than telling your stunt guys to flip a truck was tell a decent story in a coherent and interesting manner. The Dark Knight was booooorrring, and Christian Bale's performance was laughably bad. Heath Ledger was good and I'm glad he got the Oscar, but really, Tim Burton's Batman films tower over Nolan's forgettable noise and angst.

This is an honest question, is Michael Bay your favorite director? Because you seem to judge a film's quality on explosions and stunts.




Right...we'll see where Slumdog sits in a couple years. My bet is right next to Crash on the Academy's "oopps we fucked it up" pedestal. If TDK was so boring, how did it make a billion dollars? That billion dictates a lot of repeat movie goers and last time I checked, boring doesn't equal multiple trips to see the same film. Just because the Academy feels obligated to honor trite pretentious shit doesn't mean they are any good. I'm sorry they couldn't realize the merit of a very well done movie just because its based on a comic book, but maybe they should get over themselves. Hell, this is the same organization that didn't give Hitchcock or Kubrick a single directing Oscar. Oh well, I guess that's why no one really gives a shit about them anymore, hence them doubling the picture noms. Also, your Michael Bay comment just makes you look like another prick film snob. I too think Michael Bay is laughable (although I do enjoy the Rock), but it doesn't get any better for my money then old school Scorsese. I judge a film's quality based on how well it was done and let me tell you something, as much as fan boys drool over TDK, its deserves it. When someone is able to take a seventy year old American icon and transform it into a three hour movie spectacle, that deserves some credit. Was there a lot of explosions? Of course, its a fucking action movie, but that was mixed in with brilliant acting performances (not so much Bale as you pointed out), a magnificent script and a superb story. Sorry, but it was just done better in every regard over the Indian Millionaire knock off, and established one of the iconic villain performances in cinematic history to boot. The Academy needs to grow some balls.

Kenshiro
07-01-09, 01:00 PM
What are the top ten movies for 2009 do you see up for the Award?:

1. UP (Because it deserves it)
2. The Soloist (Because Hollywood loves these kinds of movies)
3. Away We Go (Because Hollywood loves these kinds of movies)
4. Public Enemies (Because Hollywood loves there actors)
5-10 I DO NOT know about any other pics coming out Hollywood likesIt's probably even money that Avatar is going to be one of the 5-10.

lamphorn
07-01-09, 03:24 PM
Right...we'll see where Slumdog sits in a couple years. My bet is right next to Crash on the Academy's "oopps we fucked it up" pedestal. If TDK was so boring, how did it make a billion dollars? That billion dictates a lot of repeat movie goers and last time I checked, boring doesn't equal multiple trips to see the same film. Just because the Academy feels obligated to honor trite pretentious shit doesn't mean they are any good. I'm sorry they couldn't realize the merit of a very well done movie just because its based on a comic book, but maybe they should get over themselves. Hell, this is the same organization that didn't give Hitchcock or Kubrick a single directing Oscar. Oh well, I guess that's why no one really gives a shit about them anymore, hence them doubling the picture noms. Also, your Michael Bay comment just makes you look like another prick film snob. I too think Michael Bay is laughable (although I do enjoy the Rock), but it doesn't get any better for my money then old school Scorsese. I judge a film's quality based on how well it was done and let me tell you something, as much as fan boys drool over TDK, its deserves it. When someone is able to take a seventy year old American icon and transform it into a three hour movie spectacle, that deserves some credit. Was there a lot of explosions? Of course, its a fucking action movie, but that was mixed in with brilliant acting performances (not so much Bale as you pointed out), a magnificent script and a superb story. Sorry, but it was just done better in every regard over the Indian Millionaire knock off, and established one of the iconic villain performances in cinematic history to boot. The Academy needs to grow some balls.
The funniest thing about all this is that The Dark Knight was the most trite and pretentious film of the year. Give credit to Ledger for his performance, but one of the most iconic in history? Kind of early to say that, wouldn't you think? I mean, unless you're Harry Knowles.

I am a prick film snob, but I'm not a snob for any particular genre. I just like films that are good. I love a good action flick. I could have even seen Iron Man being nominated over TDK. Iron Man was a much better written, directed, and acted movie. Body of Lies was a much better movie. Just one question, did you see The Reader or Slumdog? Or did a fan blog tell you they sucked? For my money they were both a hell of a lot better and more exciting than TDK. There was actually tension and suspense in Slumdog... did you really think for a second that our caped crusader wasn't going to pull it off in the end? If there was a lame selection on the Best Picture list, it was Benjamin Button. I could have seen something like Synecdoche, NY or yeah, even Iron Man, filling it's place. If we judged movies the way so many people seem to want us to, every one of those craptacular Shrek movies would be up for Best Picture because it made a bundle at the box office.

I definitely think the Academy fucks up more often than not. Crash sucked ass. Chicago was a stupid choice. They picked Oliver over 2001. But this notion that the Academy Awards should reflect public opinion is incredibly dumb. The Oscars should reflect the opinion of film professionals because that's who's voting.

If you don't like being introduced to new things and simply want awards shows to just reflect the tastes of the masses, then again, watch the MTV Movie Awards instead. I hear Twilight did really well this year.

Giles
07-01-09, 03:34 PM
The funniest thing about all this is that The Dark Knight was the most trite and pretentious film of the year. Give credit to Ledger for his performance, but one of the most iconic in history? Kind of early to say that, wouldn't you think? I mean, unless you're Harry Knowles.

I am a prick film snob, but I'm not a snob for any particular genre. I just like films that are good. I love a good action flick. I could have even seen Iron Man being nominated over TDK. Iron Man was a much better written, directed, and acted movie. Body of Lies was a much better movie. Just one question, did you see The Reader or Slumdog? Or did a fan blog tell you they sucked? For my money they were both a hell of a lot better and more exciting than TDK. There was actually tension and suspense in Slumdog... did you really think for a second that our caped crusader wasn't going to pull it off in the end? If there was a lame selection on the Best Picture list, it was Benjamin Button. I could have seen something like Synecdoche, NY or yeah, even Iron Man, filling it's place. If we judged movies the way so many people seem to want us to, every one of those craptacular Shrek movies would be up for Best Picture because it made a bundle at the box office.

I definitely think the Academy fucks up more often than not. Crash sucked ass. Chicago was a stupid choice. They picked Oliver over 2001. But this notion that the Academy Awards should reflect public opinion is incredibly dumb. The Oscars should reflect the opinion of film professionals because that's who's voting.

If you don't like being introduced to new things and simply want awards shows to just reflect the tastes of the masses, then again, watch the MTV Movie Awards instead. I hear Twilight did really well this year.


and under that theory, Transformers 2 should be 'best movie' of the year (so far) ;)

lamphorn
07-01-09, 03:36 PM
and under that theory, Transformers 2 should be 'best movie' of the year (so far) ;)
Damn right! I just don't get that whole notion that the Oscars are "out of touch" and should reflect the majority opinion... why? Why should it? Should Pulitzer just hand the Best Fiction award to John Grisham and J.K. Rowling every year?

Goat3001
07-01-09, 03:47 PM
The Dark Knight was phenomenal and its a joke that it didn't walk away with best picture. There is also no way in hell that Nolan shouldn't of gotten a best director. The movie was revolutionary with its use of imax cameras and established the Joker as one of the greatest movie villains of all time. (Sorry Jack) Someone explain to me what Danny Boyle had to do that was harder than coordinating the flipping of a semi without the use of green screen. Slumdog=pretentious garbage. At the very least they could have given it to a movie with some balls like the Wrestler instead of the Oscar bait they chose. Also btw...Shakespeare in Love was the greatest Oscar tragedy since Dances with Wolves over Goodfellas.

You do know that all three main characters in the movie had 3 different actors play them and Danny Boyle made the transition between them pretty damn seamless. I'll agree that Nolan did a terrific job with TDK* but Danny Boyle was better and had a tougher job to do with a bunch of no name actors.

*The semi flip wasn't the best scene in the movie to begin with, the best directed scene was the Batman and Joker in the interrogation room. The semi-flip wasn't even the best stunt pulled in the movie, that would be the hospital blow up.

jmu878
07-01-09, 05:15 PM
The funniest thing about all this is that The Dark Knight was the most trite and pretentious film of the year. Give credit to Ledger for his performance, but one of the most iconic in history? Kind of early to say that, wouldn't you think? I mean, unless you're Harry Knowles.

I am a prick film snob, but I'm not a snob for any particular genre. I just like films that are good. I love a good action flick. I could have even seen Iron Man being nominated over TDK. Iron Man was a much better written, directed, and acted movie. Body of Lies was a much better movie. Just one question, did you see The Reader or Slumdog? Or did a fan blog tell you they sucked? For my money they were both a hell of a lot better and more exciting than TDK. There was actually tension and suspense in Slumdog... did you really think for a second that our caped crusader wasn't going to pull it off in the end? If there was a lame selection on the Best Picture list, it was Benjamin Button. I could have seen something like Synecdoche, NY or yeah, even Iron Man, filling it's place. If we judged movies the way so many people seem to want us to, every one of those craptacular Shrek movies would be up for Best Picture because it made a bundle at the box office.

I definitely think the Academy fucks up more often than not. Crash sucked ass. Chicago was a stupid choice. They picked Oliver over 2001. But this notion that the Academy Awards should reflect public opinion is incredibly dumb. The Oscars should reflect the opinion of film professionals because that's who's voting.

If you don't like being introduced to new things and simply want awards shows to just reflect the tastes of the masses, then again, watch the MTV Movie Awards instead. I hear Twilight did really well this year.

Why too early?? The Joker is one of the essential villains in American pop culture and Heath hit it out of the fucking park.. TDK..pretentious? How? Its a comic book movie, a very well done one, and my point is the Academy snubed it because of this fact. Should they mirror public sentiments? Absolutely not, then garbage like Twilight would be winning as you said, but they shouldn't totally disregard Nolan's efforts because of the source material. That is capital A bullshit. Yeah I know he wasn't directly responsible for the stunts, but everything in that movie flowed through him, including the casting of Ledger. Which btw, if you go back and read initial reactions on the issue from this board, were quite negative.

Yeah, I see every nominated best pic every year, and I wasn't particularly impressed by any of them this year. None blew me away like TDK, it was an action movie with a backbone. They all seemed hackneyed and uninspired. Well made, sure. Going to be remembered in the long run? Doubt it. I mean Christ, the Academy couldn't even muster the courage to nominate The Wrestler which was an acting tour de france. So, just because I wasn't jizzing my pants over Slumdog like everyone else doesn't mean I don't appreciate good cinema. Let me ask you a question? Did you really think the poor slumdog wasn't going to get the final question right? Hell, I can get the same drama staying at home watching Regis Millionare reruns on the game show network. So just like you, I like good cinema, I'm just not a prick about it when someone has a differing opinion.

Groucho
07-01-09, 05:20 PM
If a genie showed up right now and granted me one wish, I would use it to retroactively award TDK Best Picture so that all the fanboys would STFU.

dino88
07-02-09, 06:11 AM
I mean Christ, the Academy couldn't even muster the courage to nominate The Wrestler which was an acting tour de france.

Lance Armstrong was in The Wrestler?

Did you really think the poor slumdog wasn't going to get the final question right? Hell, I can get the same drama staying at home watching Regis Millionare reruns on the game show network.

This statement makes me think you missed the point of the film entirely. Or as lamphorn said, you just didn't watch it.

If a genie showed up right now and granted me one wish, I would use it to retroactively award TDK Best Picture so that all the fanboys would STFU.

Do you really think they would stop? They would just start complaining that it didn't win a special Oscar for Best Film Ever Made.

RichC2
07-02-09, 08:28 AM
Do you really think they would stop? They would just start complaining that it didn't win a special Oscar for Best Film Ever Made.

-ohbfrank-

Something has to beat Highlander eventually.

Jaymole
07-02-09, 08:52 AM
The Oscars have gotten it wrong so many times that I always wonder why people get so upset that a film wasn't nominated or awarded the big prize.

Hokeyboy
07-07-09, 12:10 PM
The anti-TDK Babymen are getting to be just as annoying as the TDK Babymen. Enough already from both of you. -ohbfrank-

And Slumdog Millionaire was trite, predictable, and grossly overpraised. It was basically Hollywood at it's patronizing PC best, "Look we love the brown people too!! They have something to *say*!!" Cloying, obnoxious, and insulting. The best picture of 2008 was Synecdoche, New York. I don't lose any sleep over it not winning any major awards. I'm usually heavily sedated.

Travis McClain
07-07-09, 03:21 PM
The anti-TDK Babymen are getting to be just as annoying as the TDK Babymen. Enough already from both of you. -ohbfrank-

And Slumdog Millionaire was trite, predictable, and grossly overpraised. It was basically Hollywood at it's patronizing PC best, "Look we love the brown people too!! They have something to *say*!!" Cloying, obnoxious, and insulting. The best picture of 2008 was Synecdoche, New York. I don't lose any sleep over it not winning any major awards. I'm usually heavily sedated.

Funny, my wife and I finally saw Slumdog Millionaire last night. I concede that much of it was predictable, but I don't know that I would go so far as to call it trite. I can't speak to "grossly overpraised" because I only heard word of mouth that it was interesting and absorbing--and I found both claims to be true. I really wanted to see a happy ending for Jamal and Latika, and it's been a while since I cared enough about two characters in a movie to invest that much of myself in their fate.

The notion that it was "Hollywood at [its] patronizing PC best" is quite an accusation, given some of the films that have come forth over the years. I saw it as a class issue, exploring the dismissive view that the haves tend have of the have-nots, which is (unfortunately) universally held, it seems. That the characters were Indian were not relevant to the social commentary; that they were poor, was. Such miserable and brutal experiences are an unfortunately true way of life for many people across the world, and I did not see their depiction in this film as patronizing in the least. If anything, I was surprised at how much cooperation the film received to shoot amongst a society it exposed as so contemptuous toward its down-trodden.

RichC2
07-07-09, 03:30 PM
Funny, my wife and I finally saw Slumdog Millionaire last night. I concede that much of it was predictable, but I don't know that I would go so far as to call it trite. I can't speak to "grossly overpraised" because I only heard word of mouth that it was interesting and absorbing--and I found both claims to be true. I really wanted to see a happy ending for Jamal and Latika, and it's been a while since I cared enough about two characters in a movie to invest that much of myself in their fate.

The notion that it was "Hollywood at [its] patronizing PC best" is quite an accusation, given some of the films that have come forth over the years. I saw it as a class issue, exploring the dismissive view that the haves tend have of the have-nots, which is (unfortunately) universally held, it seems. That the characters were Indian were not relevant to the social commentary; that they were poor, was. Such miserable and brutal experiences are an unfortunately true way of life for many people across the world, and I did not see their depiction in this film as patronizing in the least. If anything, I was surprised at how much cooperation the film received to shoot amongst a society it exposed as so contemptuous toward its down-trodden.

More or less agreed there. Enjoyed the movie a good deal, thought the setting was nicely shot, and didn't feel it was a PC pick at all -- it was just an entertaining, feel good movie that a lot of people liked.

Of course, in this day and age, EVERYBODY is required to have an agenda for "liking" something.

Gaff
07-08-09, 07:34 PM
I think the timing of Slumdog Millionaire really worked in it's favor. Everybody was so wound up about the economy and just wanted to feel good for a second. Predictable or not, I really felt the weight of everything coming together at the end. It was genuinely moving.

In regards to the broadening of the category I'm predicting that at least two of the candidates each year will be a laughable entry. There truth is there's really not that many Best Picture quality titles every year, and the number will be even less now that all the studios are cutting back their slates.