There will be 10, count 'em 10, nominees for best picture when the nominations for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards are announced Feb. 2.Oh, the Academy tried to frame their decision with a reach back into history:
In a move designed to let more movies share in the limelight that surrounds the contenders for the Academy's top award, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences' board of governors approved a rule change Tuesday night that ups the ante by doubling the number of movies that will be welcomed into the best picture category.
Academy president Sid Ganis characterized the move as a "return to the past" when the Academy regularly spread its largesse out among 10 -- and sometimes even more -- best picture nominees.
Speaking to the media at the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn Theater, Ganis on Wednesday was flanked by posters listing the 10 nominees for 1939 -- widely regarded as the high-water mark for quality studio releases. That year, the lineup ranged from Westerns ("Stagecoach") to sophisticated comedies ("Ninotchka") to melodrama ("Dark Victory") to all-time classics like "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," "The Wizard of Oz" and eventual winner "Gone With the Wind."
"Suppose you had to narrow that field down to five nominees? Which of these films would you keep? Whichever five movies you selected, you'd be losing five extraordinary films," Ganis asked rhetorically.Yes, but that was 1939, a rarity that everyone will acknowledge was created only because God reached down from Heaven and sprinkled fairy dust on Hwood. There's never been another year in movies like 1939 and God, as we know, moved off into blessing other ventures including sports ('69 Mets) and commerce (Google).
Here's an idea: Don't set a limit -- minimum or maximum -- for nominations. If the Academy voters overwhelmingly like 7 movies, nominate 7 movies. If they only like 3 movies, nominate 3 movies. But arbitrarily expanding the slate of nominees to 10? Not only a grab for bigger TV ratings, but also increase movie box office (more buzz about the additional 5 nominees), more ad revenue for the trades (the studios distributing those 5 other nominees now need to run print campaigns to pimp them), blah blah blah.
Am I just being too cynical here? What are your thoughts?
For more analysis, go here for THR's Steve Zeitchik's take: "The Dark Side of Oscar's Move to 10".
Posts
8 comments:
I agree with your assessment and recommendation 100 percent.
You are being too cynical. Oscar night is all about celebrating the best in the year's movies. Why not 10? What I'd like to see them do is go back and do what they did 2 years ago. THAT show was WAY better than this years offering.
- E.C. Henry from Bonney Lake, WA
Wow.... I'd be hard pressed to find FIVE Oscar worthy movies in this year of our Lord 2009, let alone TEN?!
What the Academy is simply fearful to admit is that 1. the Oscar name and concept is about as viable and pertinent these days as AM Radio and 2. the crop of moviegoers that anyone actually cares about in Hwood skews far younger than anyone who'd actually watch and/or give two shits about the Oscars.
Ten nominations, eh? Wow... can't wait 'til Revenge of the Fallen walks away with a trophy...
Yup, this move is a calculated attempt to grab ratings.
Th Oscar broadcast is a TV variety show. The better the ratings, the more money they get. That's why they give the actors all that free stuff. It's to make sure they show up for the show in order to lure viewers.
I'm going to respectful disagree with those who say that movie-goers do not care about Oscar buzz. Some may not watch the braodcast, but many people follow what films get nominated, then go to said films in order to be in the know. Witness the rise in revenues for nominated films after they are announced.
That said, I agree that ten nominations is a very bad idea. It is an attempt to make more money off Oscar buzz. It won't work. The films nominated for best picture generaly do get a bump. People will see what the fuss is about. They may(average movie fan, not movie geeks like myself) see two or three of the films nominated, just so they can have an opinon on an "event".
That said, if the effort to be in the know gets to be arduous, people will bail. Remember the comic book boom of the early ninties? Every issue had three varient covers, was a collector's item, or came with mutant powers that gave you six pack abs and erradicated your acne, all well making your voice as deep as James Earl Jones falling to the center of the earth. The trick worked for a bit. Then people, even hard core fans, gave up trying to gues what was special and what was filler. The boom turned bust. I can see that happening with this fiasco.
Additional, this reminds me of when they decided to stop keeping score at kid's athletic events. With no loser, everyone wins. Except quality. Kids know when their team has just let in 87 goals and scored only 6. I expect film makers, after the initial tizzy over being nominated, will start to realise that a lot of films are only being nominated to fill out the roster. Quanity over quality.
What's going to be hilarious is when even more obscure, hardly-seen limited-release Oscar-bait films make the cut -- instead of the big-budget crap that this move is clearly intended to benefit. Those behind this push (studios) will be PISSED when garbage like T4 and Trans2 rightly don't get a nod.
Of course, had they done this last year, an example of big-budget awesomeness in all regards, most importantly STORY, (THE DARK KNIGHT) wouldn't have been snubbed.
So far this year, there is no TDK mega-hit that's also superb. STAR TREK is pretty damn good, but not quite as deep.
If Oscar is looking for ratings, more nominations won't do it. But I know what will. "Battles of The Career Killed Movie Stars". After every award you get two actors, who used to have careers, and face them off, American Gladiator style.
Picture it: Best actor award segues into Chevy Chase and Faye Dunaway wrestling in a vat of hypodermic needles. Winner gets a small part in a Scorsese film.
Then, after the best actress is awarded, F. Murray Abraham and Mira Sorvino strip down, smear themselves in green jello and beat each other with rabid pit-bulls. Winner gets a lead role in a Ron Howard film.
After best picture, the survivor of our previous rounds squares off against the formidable Haley Joel Osment in a spine tingling game of Russian Roulette. I know, I know, the kid has an advantage in that he can see dead people, but the other competitor has survived the prelims and proven him/herself a scrappy individual. Winner gets a shiny new pilot and a 13 episode commitment. Bonus: Their co-star is Corky from "Life Goes On".
The show wraps up withing a moving memorial to the former stars we lost over the course of the evening and we cut to: Ratings Gold!
I like your idea about not setting a limit, it is actually what they are doing for the Best Original Song Category from now on. But there is no doubt that this is for commercial reasons( described here): http://www.newsy.com/videos/oscars_and_then_there_were_ten
But haven't we all felt like there was a movie that should have been nominated that wasn't?
Post a Comment