Home Forums Movies Hollywood Reporter: Oscars: Academy Weighing Return to Five Best Picture Nominees

Hollywood Reporter: Oscars: Academy Weighing Return to Five Best Picture Nominees

CREATE A NEW TOPIC
CREATE A NEW POLL
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 69 total)
Created
5 years ago
Last Reply
5 years ago
69
replies
4731
views
37
users
espnfan
10
AMG
6
teri
5
  • Djoko
    Participant
    Joined:
    Feb 14th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181968

    I think they’ll go back to five. They were stupid to expand the category in the first place. How can a movie be nominated for Best Picture like Selma with only one other nomination for best song – not even for the movie itself. They need to trim the fat. I think it will happen.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Ribs
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 30th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181969

    I think the problem here is that academy membership voted for the doubling of the nominee count with the preconception that this would make half of the nominees big, succesful crowd-pleasers; all it did do, of course, was double the chance of any one individual blockbuster to get in.

    Things should stay above five for sure. I’d prefer it to stay as it is or to stick to a solid 9 or 10 a year, but I can also see the category being set at six nominees as well. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    AMG
    Participant
    Joined:
    Sep 20th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181970

    JUST LEAVE IT AS IT IS! When there are only five good enough nominees, odds are those five will be the only ones nominated. In the more likely event that there are more worthy nominees, in these years more can be nominated. Everyone’s happy. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    tennisfreak
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 18th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181971

    And every year we keep it at this ridiculous number, we run the risk of a film doing what some Best Pic nominees from the 30’s accomplished: having Best Pic be the ONLY nomination. And that will just look damned ridiculous.

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181972

    [quote=”babypook”]

    [quote=”PaulHanlinJr”][quote=”agloster94″]But one of the reasons being given for this reported re-change is because of the viewing figures dipping this year.

    I fail to see how limiting the biggest award of the night to five films will help with the viewing figures. This year, for example, I highly doubt that the biggest financial success of this year’s Best Picture nominees, American Sniper, would have been nominated had there have been five nominees.

    In addition, in years since they expanded the race, the likes of Inception, Toy Story 3, Up, Django Unchained, Captain Phillips and other big box office success stories with plenty of hard core fans would likely miss out on Best Picture nominations.

    If members are convinced that the viewers will tune in based on the films nominated for Best Picture, it is surely common sense that the more nominees there are, and the more diverse that these nominees are,  the more likely the occasional viewers may decide to tune in year in, year out. 

    AMG,  they simply didn’t nominate films that people cared about or rejected at the boxoffice, save American Sniper.  It’s that simple. Make it 6.  3 from the arthouse niche, 3 intelligent blockbusters.  [/quote]

    But, Imitation Game and Theory of Everything made more money than Sniper. So did Boyhood and Whiplash.

    And who decides which blockbusters are ‘intelligent’? The idiot masses? Or, the smug elite? Lol.

    [/quote]

    No they didn’t. American Sniper is currently the 16th highest grossing film worldwide released last year. Plus it is third in terms of the US Box Office alone. The Imitation Game is 42nd Internationally, The Theory of Everything was 61st, Boyhood is 105th, with Whiplash being 155th.  [/quote]

    I’ll take a look at it again, but right now, I disagree. Selma has also made more money than American Sniper.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Ribs
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 30th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181973

    And every year we keep it at this ridiculous number, we run the risk of a film doing what some Best Pic nominees from the 30’s accomplished: having Best Pic be the ONLY nomination. And that will just look damned ridiculous.

    Er, why would it be so? A bad film can be nominated for individual parts, but a good film can’t be nominated for the whole?

    ReplyCopy URL
    24Emmy
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181974

    Again, what is the point in nominating films that have no chance in hell of winning best picture?

     

    So, you only want two nominees? Because most films don’t have a chance to win. What does that have to do with be a deserving nominee.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Placeholder
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 10th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181975

    Ron Paul.gif

    The move to 10 was a kneejerk overreaction. I won’t hold my breath though.

    ReplyCopy URL
    espnfan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 24th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181976

    [quote=”espnfan”]Again, what is the point in nominating films that have no chance in hell of winning best picture?

     

    So, you only want two nominees? Because most films don’t have a chance to win. What does that have to do with be a deserving nominee.

    [/quote]

    No, I do not only want two nominees for best picture.  But having two or three films that are filler is better than having 7 or 8 films that are filler.  And the chances of five films/nominees actually having legitimate support from the academy and possibly winning is still greater than 7, 8 or more films having support and possibly winning.    

    Or as pointed out above, the fact we have films with only one or two other nominations up for best picture is ridiculous.  If a film is really that great and worthy of being the years best film, don’t you think it should actually have widespread support from across the academy?  It’s sad to say, but Selma’s nomination was nothing but a pitty and politically motivated nomination.  Again, I get the feeling many of these films are getting nominated because their studios ran the best campaign, not because they are the best films of the year.  Expanding the field has only allowed films that have no business being nominated or chance to win to be nominated.  

    As someone earlier said, no matter how many nominees you have that will not solve the real problems with the Oscars.  Until changes are made to the nomination process, voting process, and the membership itself, the real problems will not be solved.     

    ReplyCopy URL
    starfishgirl
    Member
    Joined:
    Oct 10th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181977

    Something they really need to do is push the date back to where it used to be. Extend the nominating period into late January and put the show back in March- separate the Oscars from the million other awards shows as much as possible, and that will allow time for voters to see as many films as they can. It will also allow the public to be let in on the conversation more, and gives them time to see the films too.

    Do that and we may get surprises in the winners again. Can someone tell me why they moved everything up in the first place, so that nominations take place in a vacuum and no one has time to see anything?

    ReplyCopy URL
    Eddy Q
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 13th, 2012
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181978

    Last year Mark Harris wrote a very convincing piece on why we should go back to 5 nominees. Here’s an extract:

    Last week, shortly after the nominations were announced, Nick Davis, an associate professor in gender and sexuality studies at Northwestern University who maintains a passionate avocational interest in Oscar history, tweeted a jarring statistic: This year, he noted, the “top six” Oscar categories — picture, director, and the four acting races — comprised a total of just 11 films. I found that number perplexing because it seemed counterintuitive. How could a year that was widely heralded as one of the best in a long time for American movies yield the smallest — the least diverse, if you will — pool of contenders in recent memory? I decided to poke at the stat a bit more by adding in the two writing categories for a “top eight.” Those results were scarcely better: This year’s major-category nominations — 44 in all — were spread among just 12 films. (The only non–Best Picture nominees to receive any major category recognition this year were August: Osage County, Blue Jasmine, andBefore Midnight.) That’s the fewest in 30 years. What’s more, the second-lowest number of films represented in the major nominations in the last 30 years — 14 — happened just one year ago. And the third-lowest also happened in the five years since the rule change. The inescapable truth: Best Picture may have gotten bigger, but the Oscars have gotten smaller.

    And another:

    When only five Best Picture nominees were allowed, the field of likely contenders usually narrowed by December to seven or eight. For members of the actors branch, who also have to vote for 20 acting nominees, or of the writers branch, who have to pick 10 writing nominees, that meant that in order to fill out their ballots, they had to look beyond the Best Picture candidates and turn their attention to a large pool of additional movies. But since the rule change, 14 or 15 films annually harbor hopes of a Best Picture nomination. There’s some truth to the old saw about the psychology of voting that people like to vote for winners, and they also prefer not to waste their time on candidates that they hear don’t stand a chance. I suspect that the practical effect of a larger Best Picture field is that AMPAS voters now tend to divide the 50-odd DVD screeners they receive into two piles: Movies they “should” see (in other words, the big contenders) and everything else. Guess how often the second pile never gets looked at until it’s too late?

    Full article: http://grantland.com/hollywood-prospectus/the-nolan-effect-why-the-larger-best-picture-pool-is-actually-shrinking-the-number-of-oscar-contenders/ 

    In short, there was noticeably more variety and diversity in many other categories besides Best Picture when we had 5 nominees and voters had no choice but to venture outside the box in these categories. Now we have a moderately more diverse Best Picture list, but the other categories are so much more predictable on the whole because voters are more able to focus exclusively on potential Best Picture contenders. Personally I’d rather have more interesting lineups across the board rather than in only one category. Bring back the 5-nominee maximum. Let them vote for their baity biopics in Best Picture – that’s never going to change any time soon however many nominees there are. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    patmcb
    Participant
    Joined:
    Oct 18th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181979

    Agreeing with 24Emmy, this year it could be argued that only TGBH and Birdman had a chance of winning BP. Yes, there was Boyhood and the Imitation Game, but with only one win each, they weren’t as loved as we had previously thought they would be. I would guess Boyhood finished pretty far behind other nominees in the BP race. This is usually how it goes, too. Two pictures (maybe three or on the rare occasion four) are the only ones with a chance of winning BP. So…like 24Emmy said, should we only have two or three best picture nominees? I would hope not…

    ReplyCopy URL
    TomHardys
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 24th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181980

    What saddens me is the fact that by going back to 5 nominees, there will be no future Hers, Whiplashes, Beasts of The Southern Wilds and whatnot… Yes they’re filler nominees but what’s the problem with that? They still get the chance to have a Best Picture nomination in their resumé. It’s more of a prestige nomination than an actual way to tell them they have a shot at winning. With only 5 nominations we’ll be resorted to the same old British biopics about people 70% of the audience doesn’t give two fucks about. The smaller but not less worthy films will be forgotten.

    ReplyCopy URL
    Lord Freddy Blackfyre
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181981

    They should keep it at 10 but make a rule that a picture contender should be seen by more than five people (not counting critics). That woulld had rule out half of this year contenders.

    The Oscar needs to get rid of the preferential ballot so it can name a deserving movie as Best Picture again.

    ReplyCopy URL
    TomHardys
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 24th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181982

    They should keep it at 10 but make a rule that a picture contender should be seen by more than five people (not counting critics). That woulld had rule out half of this year contenders.

    I’m cackling. They also should make another rule that forbids washed out movies about white people worried with their Nintendos from competing.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 31 through 45 (of 69 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Similar Topics
RobertPius - Nov 13, 2019
Movies
Alex Meyer - Nov 12, 2019
Movies