Oscars to expand Best Picture noms to 10.

Well, what I put makes much more sense than your last paragraph. Studios already pay a crapload of money to try to get films nominated. You live in Texas. I'm sorry, but the Academy doesn't put enormous ads in Texas newspapers. You know? I live in Southern California. The L.A. Times is chockfull of big ads for films which you've never heard of and have no intention of ever seeing anyway. The Academy doesn't care what you think of them because you don't get a vote, but they care far more about other people who do get a vote than they probably should. You can go on and on about how they don't matter and their ratings are dropping, but they still sell major bucks for commercials and are always one of the most-watched shows of the year.

The Dark Knight and WALL*E would certainly get far more votes if they were nominated than they did when they weren't, plus you claim that WALL*E wasn't worthy anyway. What was, according to you? I'm sure many people around here would disagree with you.

__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page

I've always liked George C. Scott's suggestion that the only way to pick the best actor would be to have the 5 (or 10) nominees take turns playing the same role. I think they should turn the Oscar awards night into a version of TV's the Iron Chef--The nominees are kept backstage out of sight and sound of what's happening onstage, and then are brought out one at a time at a setting where there's a camera, a table, a chair, and 4-5 other props on the table, and each then must play the same scene, each "cooking up" a performance out of the same available "ingredients." One year it's Rick telling his love goodbye at the Casablanca airport; next year it's Stanley confronting Blanche with the reality of her life; next year it's Gen. Patton addressing his troops. Those are just examples. The scenes would be updated annually, selected at random from the 5 best picture nominees for the current year. Each of the best actor (and in their turns, best actress, best supporting actor and actress) nominees would be given scripts for each of the five scenes so they can learn their parts and rehearse in advance. But then one scene is selected randomly and they all have to play the same part in the same scene. The winner is decided by an applause meter.

And long before people had so many alternatives competing for their attention in the media marketplace. The first broadcast on TV was actually 1953.

P.S. It was actually Bogart who said that all the actors should play Hamlet and then they could decide who was best, if anybody really cared all that much. Don't be fooled. Just because you don't care anymore, plenty of people still do.

I care.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

I'm sure it does, Mark. My last paragaraph was not an idea original to me. As my first words in that paragraph said, "I've read some objections . . ." attributed to people in the movie business. Their objections may be valid, they may not. I personally have no vested interest either way. I appreciate that you have a different point of view.

I'm sure you're right about the relative amount of newspaper advertising. That might be meaningful except for the fact that I can go down to the corner and buy the LA Times or even subscribe to it via my laptop daily right here in Houston. It's not like the West Coast has the market cornered on entertainment publications and advertising and the rest of us are living on the dark side of the moon. I see the same TV ads and same movie reviews on TV as do you. And I regularly read the Wall Street Journal that covers the movie industry news in California the same as the oil industry news in Houston, and the Iowa farming industry news in, well, you know. In fact, most of the material I've read on this subject was in the WSJ today, which is interested in movies as a business, the same way Hollywood is.

Oh, I agree 100%. Wouldn't expect them to, for that very reason. They don't give a damn about what you think either, unless you happen to be a member of the Academy.

Well, the whole idea behind the Academy Awards is that members of the Academy decide who is to get the awards as an unique form of recognition of outstanding work from one's peers. Under those circumstances, it would be odd if they cared more about the evaluations of others outside the Academy. It's their organization, their awards, they can run it like they want to.

I don't recall saying the Oscar Award television program didn't matter (although you're correct to surmise it doesn't matter much to me). I certainly wouldn't say that about the Oscars themselves since most winners seem quite pleased.

The ratings for the TV show are lower today than in the past, right, or do you have information to the contrary? I probably mentioned the fact; sorry if it sounded as though I was going on and on and on....

Well, hooray for Hollywood! You can't imagine how many nights I've tossed and turned worrying about how many ads will be sold for the Oscar Awards, the Super Bowl, the World Series!

Yeah, getting nominated likely would have increased the number of votes they received. Can't win the lottery unless you buy a ticket. But since they weren't among the 5 nominated films, can you say with absolute certainly either one of them would have made the cut had there been 6 films nominated. Do you know for sure that, having ignored those films on the first 5 nominations, Academy would not have passed them over in the next 5 nominations?

No, I simply expressed my personal opinion it wasn't worthy of a Best Picture award. It's OK with you if I have an opinion, isn't it? Even if it's not the same as yours?

Oh, I'd say offhand any of the 5 films that were nominated for best picture since those were the ones picked by the Academy for the Academy Awards. Surely if they weren't worth it, the Academy members wouldn't have picked them. I suspect Slumdog Millionaire would have won if there had been 10, 15, or 20 nominees.

I hope they would--it would be awfully boring if we all agreed about everything. No fireworks at all. I've said myself I'm usually out of step with the prevailing opinion in this forum. Fortunately most people don't take it personally or get as angry as you.

I am curious about one thing--if the nominations had been increased to seven and both Dark Knight and Wall*E had been nominated, which of the other 5 nominees would they have taken enough votes from for either of them to have beaten Slumdog Millionaire for Best Picture? I just don't understand the logic of how either of two films that weren't even nominated by Academy members in the first rounds could have magically become the Cinderella victors if only they had been invited to the ball. I have no way of knowing, of course, but I'd have bet they would have been just two more also-rans when Slumdog took the prize.

PSPS I'm sure you're right about Bogart's earlier quote, although he was certainly proud of his Oscar. I'm also sure that if you go back and read what Scott had to say when he refused his Oscar, you'd find his quote about all the nominees should be required to play the same unspecified role. Or words very much to that effect.

Moreover, I don't think I said anything anywhere anytime about nobody caring for the Oscars. However, I apparently said enough to put a bee up you noise!

I wanted to pull out this comment from your discussion because this comment sorta makes me nuts and is the problem I have with this whole thing. The Academy cares more about their ratings and the "show" and you seem to feel you need to be "entertained," when in reality, it is -- and SHOULD be -- about awards. I find it appalling years ago when they relegated some of the smaller awards to having the recipient give their rushed through acceptance speech in their seats! This is a career high point for that makeup or sound person and the Academy is more interested in not boring the audience! What a sham that was.

And people that watch the Academy Awards seem to love to bitch about how boring it is, or how they need to get those "little" awards rushed through because they only care about the "big" awards. I find the whole thing incredibly rude and silly. Maybe the Academy should just care about giving out their awards and forget trying to make a high rated entertainment show. And who cares if it goes too long? Shouldn't these people have the right to get up there and enjoy their crowning achievement without being rushed off the stage?

Ugh.

That's a good idea. I don't think they should give an award to one film either. Rather I think films should get the award in 10ths. For example give 1/10th of the award to The Dark Knight, 2/10ths to The Wrestler, and 2/10ths to Wall-E, and 1/2 of the award to whoever.

__________________
"A candy colored clown!"
Member since Fall 2002
Top 100 Films, clicky below

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ad.php?t=26201

More nominations=tougher competition...they should have kept the 5.

__________________
My 100 ALL-TIME FAVE Movies

Wow, they're really trying to shake things up. The Honorary Award will be cut and given out in November. Not sure but I wonder if they're going to go for an "AFI Lifetime Achievement" kind of thing...and they're finally trying to address the awful Best Song category.

http://www.movieforums.com/community...ote=1&p=545333

As few good moves are made, they should narrow it to three (3) nominees.

This is an industry trick. It’s like Congress giving themselves a raise. With more people nominated, more people get to be BIG TIME.

But the standards are lowered and the honor is degraded.

Fact is, it’s all BS, because most movies nominated are junk.

There should be more nominees in the technical aspects of film making. Not Best Picture. They should change Best Picture to; Most Watchable Garbage.

__________________
R.I.P.

Then you totally misread my post, Tramp--I don't need to be entertained by the Academy Awards simply because I don't watch them. Haven't watched them for years.I do check the next morning to see who won. I do read that year after year the awards program's ratings have fallen, so apparently I'm not the only one not tuning in any longer. I have read that Academy officials are worried that much of the public are losing interest in the awards program. I suspect it's for the same reason movie attendance has declined in recent years--many movies just aren't that good. So instead of nominating more movies that many people have not seen, perhaps they should make the show more entertaining, the way most TV specials try to be. If it were only about the awards as you say, the inhouse Academy vote by Academy members for Academy members wouldn't even be on TV. Since it is on TV, you can bet your boots they're interested in pulling in bigger ratings.

Either way, I really don't care because I'll still get a summarized news report listing the winners in the morning paper.

The Onion AV Club has a good article up on the possible effects of the expansion. I like the observation that people will end up speculating as to which five are the "real" five, and which made the cut because of the higher number.

As long as the best films come out in the wash I really do not mind - but 10? 'K.

Well, I'll be the first to say that the Oscars are on the arcane side, but I'm obsessed with them anyway. I'm just not sure that you all realize that the nominations are picked using a proportional voting system. This means that voters arrange all five of their votes in order from 1 to 5, and each film is scored based on a reverse scoring system, something along the lines of #1=5 pts. #2=4 pts., etc. Technically, the film which gets the most #1 votes might not make the Top 5 if enough people think it's worse than being considered in the Top 5. Once the nominees are established, you only vote for one, and the winner is the film with the most votes. Does that answer your questions, rufnek or anybody else?

How can they eliminate a category with such monumental films as the Oscar winning Thank God It's Friday?

Did I ask a question?? I don't recall.

I've voted as a judge in competitions using the reverse scoring system, and you're right in that if there's an organized agreement among a relatively few people to vote one entry as number one and then enough folks outside that group list it as 2 or 3, it could rack up a higher total than it otherwise would have, providing the majority of voters are fairly random in selecting their number 1 top picks so that it's spread over a bigger sample.

Based on my own experience in such a situation, it might move an entry from sixth to fourth place, or from third to first. But it's not gonna jump an entry from 11th to first. But if as you say most people mark one film to be No. 1, it's almost certain to win, place or show.

One thing you could enlighten me on, Mark, how many people participate in picking the final 5-10 nominees, and do they start with the entire base of every film released during that year, or does someone shorten the list before the nominating committee sees it? If the nominating committee is considering all of the movies, the spread is likely to be more random and the winning totals lower. Might not take much to put one film in fifth place over another.

All 6,000 of the Academy members get to nominate Best Picture. They don't have to have seen any movies, and the potential nominees are ALL the films released in the L.A. area during the calendar year. All the other nominations either come through committee or are picked by the respective branches. In other words, actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors, editors nominate editors, etc.

And that's the rub isn't it? I mean, what do you suppose the average is of the 6,000 people that actually see all five nominees? Probably why I tend to like it a lot though too because it is a totally fallible system that will always leave a ton of room for bitching, whining and even cheering. Certainly helps explains how a movie like The Reader can get in over TDK. I bet a lot of votes were paid for with those wonderful little Gucci bags full of goodies yeah?

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

Not to try and threadjack or anything, but am I the only one that thinks the Academy is full of SH*T anyway? I almost NEVER agree with their Best Picture choice. They get off on being different WAAAAY too much. Also, I think the awards are rigged to honor only one type of film. That independentish, slow, long drama such as The Pianist and Doubt. (im not hating on those films they are just examples) The Best film of the last Oscars was The Dark Knight, and everyone knows it.

__________________
Latest Review: The Ugly Truth