Oscars doubling best-picture nominees to 10
Lord Buckeye
Must be because there are so many great films being made these days.
We are truly living in a golden age of cinema.
Derek Janssen
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_en_mo/us_oscars
>
> Must be because there are so many great films being made these days.
Or, because that way they'll have five of their *own* nominees, in
addition to the usual five last-minute cheat-cribs from the Golden Globes.
(Still, considering the last time we had 10 nominees was when they
couldn't pick 5 from 1939, the comparison suffers a bit.)
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Kingo Gondo
back now.
Derek Janssen
> The idea has not made sense for about 30 years, so naturally they bring it
> back now.
Reading the press statement, take a wild guess what they're referring to
by "Popular films that might have a better chance but shut out of
competition"...
This thing has "Okay, so maybe we *should've* had Wall-E for Best
Picture last year, we admit it!" written ALL OVER IT.
(And given said guilt factor, anyone want to put the relative odds for
balloons, squirrels and old codgers making the cut?)
Okay, let's get this over with, and then it can join "Technical winners
stay in their seats", "One singer for all Song nominees", and last
year's "Speeches *about* Actor roles instead of clips" in the Boulevard
of Broken Oscar-Ceremony Dreams.
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
nick
> Kingo Gondo wrote:
> > The idea has not made sense for about 30 years, so naturally they bring it
> > back now.
>
> Reading the press statement, take a wild guess what they're referring to
> by "Popular films that might have a better chance but shut out of
> competition"...
> This thing has "Okay, so maybe we *should've* had Wall-E for Best
> Picture last year, we admit it!" written ALL OVER IT.
The Dark Knight more likely.
> (And given said guilt factor, anyone want to put the relative odds for
> balloons, squirrels and old codgers making the cut?)
>
Or Star Trek.
I'll laugh if they wind up with ten midcult indie flicks with sub par
box office getting nominated.
moviePig
Anyone not familiar with the "Sorites paradox" might find this a
relevant time to make its acquaintance.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorites_paradox
Meanwhile, I wonder if I'm the only one who thinks more candidates
will actually make for *less* audience interest. (E.g., it's more
engaging to watch a head-to-head matchup than a barroom brawl.) Also,
iirc, many voters find the viewing of *five* nominees to be already
too great a burden. Also also, "BP Nominee" will cease to be a mostly
reliable indicator of worthwhile movies to see. Bad, bad idea...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
nick
moviePig
Well, they *could* run the awards show a la Agatha Christie... voting
another nominee off the island every quarter-hour. Hell, even I would
actually watch that...
Derek Janssen
> On Jun 24, 4:58 pm, Derek Janssen <ejan...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>Reading the press statement, take a wild guess what they're referring to
>>by "Popular films that might have a better chance but shut out of
>>competition"...
>>This thing has "Okay, so maybe we *should've* had Wall-E for Best
>>Picture last year, we admit it!" written ALL OVER IT.
>
> The Dark Knight more likely.
No, the Knightie-fanboys got their Heath Ledger win and went home happy--
It's the "Coulda voted for Wall-E" folks who're the ones *particularly*
regretful over voting for Slumdog.
>>(And given said guilt factor, anyone want to put the relative odds for
>>balloons, squirrels and old codgers making the cut?)
>>
> Or Star Trek.
(Huh?--What does Star Trek have to do with Wall-E not being nominated
last year?) ;)
> I'll laugh if they wind up with ten midcult indie flicks with sub par
> box office getting nominated.
Used to be, the committee could slap the loudest Charlie Kaufman or
Quentin Tarantino fans with a condescending Best Screenplay nomination
(or Best Supporting Actress, at best) and send them home thinking they'd
actually gotten something:
If this was ten years ago, we'd have actually GOTTEN "Being John
Malkovich" with a BP nom, like that AICN fanboy tried to fake; now,
there's no bouncer at the gate. :(
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
Derek Janssen
And frankly, watching *five* "Best Picture excerpt" scenes in the
ceremony was already filler enough.
(Although thought they handled it nicely last year by combining the
"Best Picture excerpt" with the "Chuck Workman montage", and putting it
in context with other past winners.
How they plan to handle all ten this year...I really couldn't say.)
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
calvin
winner. They could have a pre-Oscar dinner where
the fifth nominee is chosen, from a field of, say, five.
That way the value of being one of five nominees
would not be diluted.
David Oberman
>Jesus Christ, you people are unbelievable.
But don't you love us anyway?
>Why does that have to be the reason? Why can't it legitimately be
>that a stodgy, antiquated organization wants to revamp itself? This
>is a bold decision that embraces new possiblities and spurns tradition
>(which clearly hasn't worked so well. Notice how the ratings keep
>falling?) Maybe you secretly like stodgy and boring.
Are the Oscars any fun to watch? I haven't seen them since I was a
kid.
____
Be mindful, love, of love�s mortality.
Be mindful that all love is as the grass
And all the goodliness of love the flower
Of grass, for lo, its little day shall pass
And withering and decay define its hour.
-- James Agee, from "Permit Me Voyage"
Derek Janssen
>>
>>Reading the press statement, take a wild guess what they're referring to
>>by "Popular films that might have a better chance but shut out of
>>competition"...
>>This thing has "Okay, we admit it, so maybe we *should've* had Wall-E for Best
>>Picture last year!" written ALL OVER IT.
>
> Jesus Christ, you people are unbelievable.
>
> Why does that have to be the reason? Why can't it legitimately be
> that a stodgy, antiquated organization wants to revamp itself?
Because the producers can't figure out why the ceremonies get low
ratings after they throw in ANOTHER loopy new "revamping" idea, and
panic that they have to keep throwing in new ones:
Every time they think we don't want to watch the awards, they pay for
it, and every time they think we don't want to watch the variety numbers
and clips, they pay for *that* mistake, too....Life is balance, and all
things in moderation.
In this case, though, four months out and "Slumdog" does seem to have
been popularly inducted into the "Sheesh, what were we friggin'
*thinking*??" pantheon of coulda-voted-for-the-other-guy Regretted Best
Picture Wins, alongside "Crash", "A Beautiful Mind", and "Shakespeare in
Love".
And all the talk of "Up"'s chances made them feel their penitence that
much more keenly...And when people in Hollywood become guilty, that's
when they get loopy.
Derek Janssen (60% of bad Hollywood decisions are "Panic", 30% are
"Hubris", and the other 10 are "Guilt"...Some are all three.)
eja...@verizon.net
nick
Torino or even Iron Man and we'd still have the five nominees. But
last year was a fluke because you did have that tier of critically
acclaimed and massively popular non-BP candidates. This year, all
you've got is Up! because ain't no way Taken's gonna get anything
(ineligible anyway, isn't it?) and I wouldn't make any bets on Star
Trek or The Hangover either.
Maybe the Oscar award show is like the Miss America beauty pageant.
No matter how you revamp it, it's had it's moment. So in that case,
rather than embracing old tradition or doing strange new reality-show
gimmicks, it's best to live in the modern world of specialization and
narrow-casting and design an Academy Awards show meant to be enjoyed
by people within the industry and hardcore film fans, rather than the
old school presently non-existent casual viewer who used to watch the
Oscars, get starstruck that one night and make a point of seeing the
Best Picture. Take the hit with the smaller audience and get on with
it.
Derek Janssen
>
> I blame The Reader. Give it's BP nom to Wall-E, The Dark Knight, Gran
> Torino or even Iron Man and we'd still have the five nominees. But
> last year was a fluke because you did have that tier of critically
> acclaimed and massively popular non-BP candidates.
Hugh Jackman's "I didn't see the Reader" got a laugh, but it got a
*knowing* laugh--
Namely, from the realization that shortening the voting period didn't
keep the Weinsteins from barging in the door with their dreary ol'
Miramax-Bribes again, and that if you cribbed your noms off of the
Golden Globes, well, the GG's were suckers enough to buy whatever Harv &
Bob were selling.
...So, okay, TWO guilt factors at play: They're not happy about the
last two years' set of contenders, and they want the old days of "real"
movies getting nominated. Somebody had to push something into being said.
For now, they think that means, "Well, maybe if there were more spaces,
there'd be more room!", but hopefully that'll give enough transition
period to figure out the mechanics of how the "wrong" ones got in there
in the first place.
> Maybe the Oscar award show is like the Miss America beauty pageant.
> No matter how you revamp it, it's had it's moment.
No, it reminds people why they should see movies--
Even not showing the clips two years ago seemed to give off the message
of "Let's face it, folks, they're not going to get any better after
1975, so we're just making actors feel good."
(Which wasn't what we were saying at the '02 or '03 years' ceremonies.)
Movie fans still need an Oscars, and as long as there are *real*
nominations, we'll watch it any way they present it, because this is our
Super Bowl. (As much as we complain about this year's latest dopey
Halftime show.)
What we need is an Oscar ceremony that can quit being afraid of itself,
and not jump all defensively every time some idiot claims it's "too
long" or "has too many musical numbers", etc....I just want to know
which film goes on the almanac list, and move on to the next year.
Derek Janssen
eja...@verizon.net
G.M. Watson
David Oberman
Jim Beaver
"stevetv" <libk...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b77e5dc-54ca-4b07...@37g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...
X-No-Archive:
On Jun 25, 5:30 pm, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> Maybe the Oscar award show is like the Miss America beauty pageant.
> No matter how you revamp it, it's had it's moment. So in that case,
> rather than embracing old tradition or doing strange new reality-show
> gimmicks, it's best to live in the modern world of specialization and
> narrow-casting and design an Academy Awards show meant to be enjoyed
> by people within the industry and hardcore film fans, rather than the
> old school presently non-existent casual viewer who used to watch the
> Oscars, get starstruck that one night and make a point of seeing the
> Best Picture. Take the hit with the smaller audience and get on with
> it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Um... isn't that what it's been doing all this time?
Instead of everyone saying "This is a terrible idea" (which it isn't,
at all), everyone should be blaming the Academy for its Best Picture
selections that led it to this decision in the first place. That's
partly the reason why the television viewership has declined for
several years now, because of their elitist insistence of choosing
films for Best Picture that barely anyone has ever heard of, let alone
seen. When the average movie-goer has only heard of one or two Best
Picture nominees, that's not the general public's fault. That's the
Academy's fault for picking such movies. If they're going to show
such disrespect to the public who keeps the industry alive with their
ticket sales by being nothing but a critic's group wanna-be, then no
one should be surprised or complain that they pulled off a "panic"
maneuver like this one.
About 25 or 30 films made over $100 million at the box office last
year. Of those, probably half-a-dozen managed to be equal parts
artistic and entertaining. The only film they nominated that fit that
criteria was "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". ("Slumdog
Millionaire" made most of its money after the nominations were
announced. By doing that, they snubbed many worthy films that the
public embraced. "The Dark Knight" is the one most often mentioned,
but there was also "Gran Torino", Clint Eastwood's most successful
film. I'll admit I didn't love "Gran Torino" (or "Dark Knight") but
everyone else I know who saw it did. But there's also "Iron Man",
with a 93% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a fantastic performance by
Robert Downey Jr. And besides "Wall-E", there's also "Kung Fu Panda",
which has an 89% Rotten Tomatoes rating and made a boatload of money
at the box office. If either one were live-action films with that
sort of critical and commercial clout, they'd be nominated in a
heartbeat. But of course, the Academy can't get over its bias against
animated films. If only three of the above mentioned films were
nominated, alongside two quality films that the masses didn't see, it
would have done much to restore their credibility. That they don't
only demonstrates their loathing for the American movie-going public.
The good news is that with this expansion of the Best Picture slate,
they're implying that there is something endemic within the Academy,
and until the members get out of the their gated community, this
drastic measure has to be taken. Maybe it won't work. We'll see.
But better this than seeing the Academy make themselves wholly
irrelevant.
RESPONSE:
Um, the Oscars, contrary to the opinions the above suggests to my mind, are
not a public service. They are an opinion poll of a select private group.
You may not like the opinions of the people within that private group, but
hoping for some "manipulation" of that opinion to make it more like yours is
a fool's errand. Perhaps it's also a fool's errand on the Academy's part
hoping to make those private opinions popular with the rest of the world,
but that's another matter. The non-members of this group will never change
the _opinions_ of the members of the group simply by hoping, wishing, or
even forcing (if that were possible) enlargement in the field from which
that group comes to its opinions.
Jim Beaver
moviePig
> "stevetv" <libkl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Sounds a bit like the British Monarchy ...functionless and arbitrary,
but vested by tradition with the authority to confer stature beyond
the mundane reach of logic and reason, from a stature-reservoir that
we like to think exists somewhere...
Adam Cameron
> selections that led it to this decision in the first place. That's
> partly the reason why the television viewership has declined for
> several years now, because of their elitist insistence of choosing
> films for Best Picture that barely anyone has ever heard of, let alone
> seen.
I'm confused. Isn't the award for *best* picture, not *most popular*
picture?
It's entirely reasonable (I'd go as far as to say "quite likely") that the
*best* movies in a given year are not the ones that most people go see.
"Most people" after all is representative of the lowest common denominator
demographic, and wouldn't know a good movie if it hit them in the face
whilst they were watching the latest Transformers sequel.
Then again the Academy Awards (and by extension the nomination and winning
thereof) have long since become close to meaningless as a measure of the
craft involved, and are mostly an industry-political sort of thing these
days, aren't they? Does anyone take them seriously, beyond people
marketing films ("Winner of n Academy Awards", etc on the advertising
banner)? Sure it's nice to win something and get all luvvy and trot out
the same speech the previous person did, but the winner is only the best of
"the ones we had time to consider, or thought it politick to include in the
running". Not a measure of anything meaningful. ?
--
Adam
dgates
<nickmacp...@AOL.com> wrote:
>On Jun 24, 4:58�pm, Derek Janssen <ejan...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote:
>> Kingo Gondo wrote:
>> > The idea has not made sense for about 30 years, so naturally they bring it
>> > back now.
>>
>> Reading the press statement, take a wild guess what they're referring to
>> by "Popular films that might have a better chance but shut out of
>> competition"...
>> This thing has "Okay, so maybe we *should've* had Wall-E for Best
>> Picture last year, we admit it!" written ALL OVER IT.
>
>The Dark Knight more likely.
>
>> (And given said guilt factor, anyone want to put the relative odds for
>> balloons, squirrels and old codgers making the cut?)
>>
>Or Star Trek.
If their goal is to give their awards to honor movies like Wall-E, and
Up, and The Dark Knight, and Star Trek, elevating their perceived
promenance right up alongside the typical, more somber, serious Best
Picture nominees, I think they could create a second type of Best
Picture category.
I'm not sure what the category's exact name should be, but it might be
appropriate to map the two different categories to those Greek
"Tragedy" vs. "Comedy" masks:
http://pauwwow.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/greek-tragedy-and-comedy-masks.jpg
Tragedy = Serious? "Drama?"
Comedy = "Action / Adventure?"
Perhaps they could leave their old "Best Picture" category alone,
unnamed, and just add the new category or categories.
Maybe they need two new categories: "Best Comedy or Musical" and "Best
Action / Adventure."
Sure, there would be a tiny handful of exceptions where a "Chicago" or
a "Gladiator" might win Best Picture, plus its slot in a newly created
category, but so what? That's probably better than trying to define
some narrow, specific category rules to enforce that a film can only
be in one category or the other.
That's my final take on it. Three categories:
"Best Picture,"
"Best Comedy or Musical," and
"Best Action / Adventure."
And there are no rules pre-defined to force the interpretation of
whether, say, "Forrest Gump" is comedy, or whether "Silence of the
Lambs" is action/adventure. So a film can be nominated for multiple
categories.
Derek Janssen
>
> That's my final take on it. Three categories:
>
> "Best Picture,"
> "Best Comedy or Musical," and
> "Best Action / Adventure."
Oh, c'mon, aren't they copying the Golden Globes enough as it IS?... >_<
Derek Janssen (what, do you want them to serve drinks, air on TBS, and
give out soap-opera awards, too?)
eja...@verizon.net
dgates
I noticed that as I fleshed out my idea, it ended up coming out just
like the Golden Globes.
Maybe we could combine the two "fun" cateogories into one:
Best "Genre" pic (if we assume that "Genre" includes sci-fi, action,
adventure, musical, etc.)?
Best Crowd Pleaser?
Jim Beaver
"dgates" <dga...@somedomain.com> wrote in message
news:bnd7655aui2lnctog...@4ax.com...
Those are still complicated when it comes to determining which category a
picture should fall into.
I suggest Best Smart Picture and Best Stupid Picture.
Jim Beaver
dgates
I don't think the Academy would have to make a rigid distinction. I'd
be willing to see that occasionally one of the "Best Smiley" nominees
is also a "Best Frowny" nominee (again, to remove the category names
and just point at the two Greek masks).
I doubt they'll do it, but it would be nice if occasionally they
nominated more films for Best Picture that didn't feel like a "chore"
to watch -- ones that people had actually seen.
Jim Beaver
> I doubt they'll do it, but it would be nice if occasionally they
> nominated more films for Best Picture that didn't feel like a "chore"
> to watch -- ones that people had actually seen.
That seems to me the equivalent of hiking through the African jungle and
finding a guy who can do the one-minute mile, then saying, "Yeah, but it's
too much work to see this guy run. Let's just call the top miler in the
Olympics the best. More people have seen him."
Or maybe not.
Jim Beaver
dgates
I like analogies, but I don't buy yours. That guy who can run the
one-minute mile is *objectively*, measurably "better" than the guy
from the Olympics.
Obviously, in my view (and probably the view of many who would watch
the Oscars), the movie "Doubt" is not "better" than "The Dark Knight."
william
>
> Obviously, in my view (and probably the view of many who would watch
> the Oscars), the movie "Doubt" is not "better" than "The Dark Knight."
And there's no doubt about that, even though I'm a not a fan of either
film. The Academy Awards -- although they use the term "best" -- is
not about the best picture but which best picture will make the
Academy look good. If I remember my Hollywood history correctly -- and
it's not one of my strong points -- the Academy was started as a union
busting tool or at least the industry's response to the grumbling
about unions among the talent back in the day. Yes, entities change
over time and it seems to me that the Awards are not about a specific
film but promoting the industry itself and if that means undeserving
actors or movies getting an Oscar so be it. The film "Doubt" plays
more to the traditions of the industry and "The Dark Knight" doesn't.
It isn't all that simple but I think the Awards are more about what
"Hollywood" thinks it should honor rather than what is "best."
William
www.williamahearn.com