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 - 46 through 60 (of 69 total)
Created
5 years ago
Last Reply
5 years ago
69
replies
4729
views
37
users
espnfan
10
AMG
6
teri
5
  • Lord Freddy Blackfyre
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181983

    What’s wrong with white people and nintendo?

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

    ReplyCopy URL
    Anonymous
    Joined:
    Jan 1st, 1970
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181984
    This post was found to be inappropriate by the moderators and has been removed.
    espnfan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 24th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181985

    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?

    I get what you are trying to say, but moving the date back is not going to effect whether the public has a chance to see these films or not.  The problem is not that movie goers lack enough time to see the contenders, the problem is many of these films aren’t available to see for the public.  Most of the best picture nominees this year were released on a very limited basis and even their expansion was still limited.  Still Alice and Whiplash are great examples of this. 

    Sadly, many of these movies are not released outside of major cities.  Or people who do not live in New York City or LA have little chance to see them at their local theater.  Which is too bad.  Heck I live in a moderately sized city in the midwest (one of the biggest in my state actually) and Still Alice was never released where I live.  Same with Whiplash.  There were literally Oscar contenders this year that I was not physically able to see.  And no matter the date of the Oscars, that is not going to change this fact. 

    Enough of this qualifying run bullshit.  And films should have to be released nationally before the nominations date, at least.  Or if it were up to me, films should have to be nationally released by Dec. 31 of said calander year to qualify for that years Academy Awards.  Doing things like this would greatly help your average movie goer see some of the annual contenders.

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    Guest2014
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 15th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181986

    [quote=”agloster94″][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.

    [/quote]

    Selma’s made so far $50,482,395.  Not even listed in the worldwide boxoffice ranking, All time domestic it lies at 1,436. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    espnfan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 24th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181987

    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.

    What is wrong with filler nominees is the fact it dillutes the importance and prestige of winning an Oscar (or any award for that matter).  The bolded part above is exactly why I am against the idea of an expanded best picture line-up.  Or it essentially turns the best picture nomination into a charity award. 

    And the problem is not the smaller films being forgotten.  Those films, especially this year, have no problem getting nominated.  I do not know where this idea of the smaller films all of a sudden dissapearing is coming from.

    A couple members here were trying to be smartasses and claim “oh well then why don’t we just have two or three nominees”, well the opposite is true as well.  If the best picture nomination is going to be reduced to a charity award or a “thanks for participating ribbon” then why don’t we have 15 or 20 nominees?  Maybe 25?  Or why don’t we have 10 people nominated for all the other awards.  Or since it does not matter if a nominee might actually win, then why not just expand every field to 15 or 20 nominees?  What difference would that make since apparently it does not matter if the nominees have an actual chance to win? 

    Thankfully the above is not true and hopefully will never be true.  The same reason they keep most of the nominees at 5 nominees is the same reason they should keep best picture at 5 nominees.  And call me crazy, but a nomination is not just a charity handout or prestige honor.  At least for me, I hate this idea that has become popular that everyone should get a reward or medal just for participating or showing up.  I would hate to see the Oscars reduced to that.

     

     

    ReplyCopy URL
    ETPhoneHome
    Participant
    Joined:
    Jan 3rd, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181988

    I’ve decided that I’m pretty much indifferent to the change if it should occur. On one hand, there are more than enough worthy films each year to fill a lineup of 10. Giving those films Best Picture nominations helps their Box Office, helps the people involved advance their careers, and also increases the diversity of the lineup. On the other hand, we’ve had 5 nominees before, and the lineups are generally pretty solid. Yes, there are legendary snubs with only 5 nominees, as there would have been this year, but it was at least consistent with the other categories. My one request, that I would absolutely insist on, is that if they do go down to 5 to make it consistent, BRING THE MAKEUP CATEGORY UP TO 5 SO IT’S ACTUALLY CONSISTENT. There are plenty of movies that can be there each year, that aren’t. It’s just ridiculous that that hasn’t been fixed.

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181989

    [quote=”babypook”][quote=”agloster94″][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.

    [/quote]

    Selma’s made so far $50,482,395.  Not even listed in the worldwide boxoffice ranking, All time domestic it lies at 1,436. [/quote]

    Yes Paul, and this is without overseas ticket sales. Their budget was around $20 million. So let’s double that. The film to this point, has made more money than American Sniper, with a budget estimate of $58. So let’s double that as well. Perhaps triple.

    So in terms of relative gross profit, Selma is ahead. And hopefully, it stays ahead.

    ReplyCopy URL
    FNLFan89
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 3rd, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181990

    [quote=”PaulHanlinJr”][quote=”babypook”][quote=”agloster94″][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.

    [/quote]

    Selma’s made so far $50,482,395.  Not even listed in the worldwide boxoffice ranking, All time domestic it lies at 1,436. [/quote]

    Yes Paul, and this is without overseas ticket sales. Their budget was around $20 million. So let’s double that. The film to this point, has made more money than American Sniper, with a budget estimate of $58. So let’s double that as well. Perhaps triple.

    So in terms of relative gross profit, Selma is ahead. And hopefully, it stays ahead.

    [/quote]

    Nope, American Sniper has made more profit.

    American Sniper
    Domestic Gross: $331.8 million
    Overseas Gross: $140.3 million
    Worldwide Gross: $472.1 million
    Production Budget: $58.8 million
    Profit = (Domestic Gross x .55) + (Overseas Gross x .45) – Production Budget = ($331.8 x .55) + ($140.3 x .45) – $58.8 =  $182.49 + $63.135 – $58.8  =  $186.25 million

    Selma
    Domestic Gross: $50.5 million
    Overseas Gross: N/A
    Worldwide Gross: $50.5 million
    Production Budget: $20 million
    Profit: ($50.5 x .55) + ($0 x .45) – $20 = $27.775 – $20 = $7.775 million

    Studios usually take roughly 55% of the domestic gross and 45% of the overseas gross, hence why I used those numbers in the calculation. And this doesn’t take into account the marketing budgets for either film. Whether by gross or profit, American Sniper has outperformed Selma by a wide margin.
                    

    ReplyCopy URL
    espnfan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 24th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181991

    ^Thanks for the update.  I thought babypooks above argument was an absolute mess and made no sense, and turns out I was correct.  There is not way Selma has made more than American Sniper, no matter how you look at it.  Thanks for the information.

    ReplyCopy URL
    babypook
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2010
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181992

    ^Thanks for the update.  I thought babypooks above argument was an absolute mess and made no sense, and turns out I was correct.  There is not way Selma has made more than American Sniper, no matter how you look at it.  Thanks for the information.

     

    It wouldnt be the first time, and frankly, I’m happy to disappoint you.

    Selma has made over 200% more than American Sniper btw. And Boyhood has made over ten times it’s budget. I’m so happy about this.

    ReplyCopy URL
    DominicCobb
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 12th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181993

    The more I think about it, the more I want them to just go back to 10. I thought this variable system was the best way to go (some years have more deserving films than others) but what we’ve gotten these last few years with that system has made for some headscratchers.

    The reason people are for 5 is obvious. 5 is more prestigious. Of course. But how much does the prestige really matter? In many years of 5, we’re given an amazingly boring set of movies which is in no way indicative of the year in cinema. When a boring film got in under 5, sure it was prestigous, but who cares? If you don’t care about that movie, then really, who cares. 

    In 2008 The Dark Knight, a movie a lot of people cared about and still care about, was shafted in favor of The Reader, a film no one has ever cared about. The reason, of course, is that the Academy has a whole set of ridiculous biases that affect their choices. The Dark Knight was one of the best films of the year and an expanded field of nominees would have shown that. One of this year’s very best films, Whiplash, likely would not have made it into the top 5. Why? Not because it wasn’t good enough, or didn’t deserve the “prestige” of a BP nomination, but because it was a small film that was little seen, and the Academy is frankly more concerned with half-assed biopics and strong campaigns, like American Sniper.

    Besides, look at the critics. Look at everyone who wants to put out what their favorites films of the year were. Top 10. That’s what it’s all about.

    My only concern with the expanded field is the article Eddy Q brought up about the shrinking slate of movies with major category nominations. That’s a pretty serious issue, but I’m not sure how much can be done. Someone’s losing no matter which way you cut it. 

    ReplyCopy URL
    espnfan
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 24th, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181994

    [quote=”espnfan”]^Thanks for the update.  I thought babypooks above argument was an absolute mess and made no sense, and turns out I was correct.  There is not way Selma has made more than American Sniper, no matter how you look at it.  Thanks for the information.

     

    It wouldnt be the first time, and frankly, I’m happy to disappoint you.

    Selma has made over 200% more than American Sniper btw. And Boyhood has made over ten times it’s budget. I’m so happy about this.

    [/quote]

    I think its time you waive the white flag and give up on this argument as you clearly do not have any clue what you are talking about.  Or you just do not understand basic math and numbers at all.  You sounds like you must have fallen on your head really hard at some point.

    If you are going to try and use number for your argument, at least offer some real facts and statistics to back up your argument.  Just pulling out some random bullshit numbers from who knows where proves nothing.  I get the feeling you are taking some super random fact/number that no one uses to describe a movies success and somehow twisting and manipulating it to prove what you want it to prove.  I would not be surprised if you are just making up facts at this point to try and placate your hatred of American Sniper. 

    Again, time for you to wave the white flag.

    ReplyCopy URL
    benbraddock
    Participant
    Joined:
    Nov 4th, 2013
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181995

     I was never a fan of the change..it never should have changed..it was just another case of
     dumbing down another institution to please the masses…Smart movie goers certainly know
    quality and in the last 6 years, there has been so much riff-raff taking up spots in the best picture
    race…
    If films like  THE MIRACLE WORKER, THEY SHOOT HORSES, DONT THEY?, THE AFRICAN QUEEN
    CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, SOPHIES CHOICE,  and dozens more missed the cut, then IMO, I shouldnt have
    to see the likes of the Blind Side,Django Unchained, Inception, ELAIC, Precious and 127 Hours be honored
    with nominations for best Picture..
    I will wait patiently til it returns to the best 5

    ReplyCopy URL
    M: The Original
    Participant
    Joined:
    Aug 5th, 2014
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181996

    Best Picture is never as important as people make it out to be. Usually the best movies win at film festivals not televised award ceremonies. Five nominees for Best Picture is fine. If you prefer edgier material look outside the Oscars for satisfaction.

    Kathy Bates for Best Supporting Actress (Richard Jewell)

    ReplyCopy URL
    Atypical
    Participant
    Joined:
    Dec 1st, 2011
    Topics:
    Posts:
    #181997

    I was for the expansion then and now. It might not be the desired “kind”
    of film that makes the BP lineup (I’m guessing films like “Harry
    Potter,” “Guardians of the Galaxy,” “The Dark Knight Rises,” “Hunger
    Games,” etc., might have been desirable choices these past couple of
    years), but post-expansion, we’ve seen films like “Her,” “Amour,”
    “Beasts of the Southern Wild” (!!!), “District 9,” and “Winter’s Bone”
    make the cut instead. That’s a trade-off I’m perfectly fine with, and in
    a field of five nominees, those latter films would have been at a
    severe disadvantage. All of this talk about the expansion making the
    Oscars less prestigious is BS. That’s dubious to begin with, and even if
    it wasn’t, I’d take the list of what was nominated versus those could
    have beens. There have been times where critical and commercial acclaim
    collided to make for potentially deserving nominees. “Gone Girl” would
    have made an excellent BP nominee, for example. “Dawn of the Planet of
    the Apes”? “The LEGO Movie”? “Interstellar” gawd help us. Other options
    were available. Going back to five nominees will only bring back all of
    the discord and scorn of the Academy being “out of touch” when they pick
    five biopics again. Nothing’s going to change with these nominations
    until the voting body changes, which either means adding a marked
    infusion of diverse new members quickly or waiting for the old guard to
    die off. That’s the sad but bitter reality of things.

    ReplyCopy URL
Viewing 15 posts - 46 through 60 (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
Qoslca - Nov 12, 2019
Movies