Over 60 years ago the Oscars once had the field of best picture nominees to at least eight with a maximum of twelve. That’s right, 12 nominees up for best picture! The year 1943 was the last year to showcase such a wide array of potential winners as it was scaled back to five the following year; to where it has stayed… until now.
Incredible move, but Oscars.org and Sid Ganis is reporting that starting this year, the field will be moved back up to 10.
“After more than six decades, the Academy is returning to some of its earlier roots, when a wider field competed for the top award of the year,” said Ganis. “The final outcome, of course, will be the same – one Best Picture winner – but the race to the finish line will feature 10, not just five, great movies from 2009.
“Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories, but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize,” commented Ganis. “I can’t wait to see what that list of ten looks like when the nominees are announced in February.”
This is something I’ve actually contemplated for years. Why does it always have to be five every year? I’ve always thought it was stupid. Well, now I guess I can say, “Why does it always have to be TEN every year?”.
So until this news sinks in a little bit and I have some time to think about it, I don’t have a lot of commentary. If nothing else it will be interesting come February 2nd to see which of these other “fantastic movies” makes the cut.
Ten. Wow. Thoughts?
If you want to watch it onl1ne for free,...
There’ll just be more room for Ron Howard, Rob Marshall and Sam Mendes.
/cynic.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 24, 2009
and really, are there ten Oscar worthy films made every year? They are padding it usually with something like Little Miss Sunshine with only five.
Comment by rot — June 24, 2009
@ and really, are there ten Oscar worthy films made every year? They are padding it usually with something like Little Miss Sunshine with only five.
Doesn’t this question kind of address your own concern? Maybe there aren’t more than 5 worthy films in any one persons opinion but the Oscars aren’t meant to reflect one person’s opinion.
And if you’re truly calling for more diversity among the nominees you can’t turn around and criticize them for nominating LMS and Babe. Those are also unconventional nominees.
I agree that it’s difficult to imagine this change will result in underseen films getting more recognition. But some films that could benefit from this:
Assination of Jesse James, Che, Inglorious Basterds, Dark Knight, Being John Malkovitch, Where the Wild Things Are, Boogie Nights, Passion of the Christ, Ghost World, Children of Men…
Comment by Rusty James — June 24, 2009
Comment by Roy — June 24, 2009
If they bring Hugh Jackman back, I’m hooked. If not, the new ten-spot race will at least make for a more interesting show, whether the extra nominees deserve it or not. My guess is that they hope to highlight one or two more truly deserving films, one or two commercial films to get better ratings, and then they’ll have a spot left over where they can mess up as they usually do.
Comment by Ashley — June 24, 2009
c/p from a post i made on FilmJunk:
“The most realistic upside is movies that are considered art house and very good but too small or quirky to be nominated… will maybe get nominated. Maybe it means something like Up would get nominated. I could even believe if this was in place already that the Dark Knight could get nominated.
The most realistic downside is that movies that the studios NEED to get awards in order to make any money but are universally considered not up to snuff (ie. The Soloist) may end up getting nominated.
In the end there’ll be a mix of some welcome new nominees and a few more ‘wtf’ ones.”
Btw, unlike Kurt I would not be upset if Synecdoche was left off of 10 choices. Even though it was my no. 2 of 08, I know it is inherenly divisive enough to accept it not making any concensus list of such a broad range of people.
Comment by Goon — June 25, 2009
However, I am sick of hearing about how Batman wasn’t nominated at the oscars. As if that’s the big travesty, and the opportunity for the academy to do something right and popular. It’s as if people are forgetting that FUCKING THE WRESTLER wasn’t nominated either. That’s the fucking oversight. Not Batman.
Comment by Henrik — June 25, 2009
they need to keep five films, but change the way they choose films so that the five films really matter. It should be less about business and more about prestige, of celebrating cinematic history.
Comment by rot — June 25, 2009
thoughts?
Comment by rot — June 25, 2009
And how the fuck would anyone draw the line of who gets to vote and who doesn’t? You must bring the tickets to X amounts of screenings before voting? You must bring a photo of your DVD collection? You must answer a trivia question on the way in?
It’s the Academy’s awards, right or wrong. It’s their show, we watch. We give input on the show and their tastes, but I don’t see any right to intrude. If RowThree suddenly got a mass influx of people who love Twilight or Transformers, R3’s year end lists still wouldnt owe them anything.
While the Oscars may pander, we have no right to demand it of them.
Comment by Goon — June 25, 2009
and I said, those who vote are movie bloggers, the Campeas, the Rodneys, me.
what a perfect world.
Comment by rot — June 25, 2009
Comment by rot — June 25, 2009
I don’t give the movie blogging community enough credit to believe they would do this and not end up doing something stupid like voting strategically as a bloc.
Comment by Goon — June 25, 2009
Comment by Henrik — June 25, 2009
In other words, some years there might only be two or three nominations, or if it’s 2007 maybe there are 12 nominations. This idea it has to be the same number every year is kind of stupid. Like someone said above, often they just pad the nominees with fluff. What’s the point of that? We all know Miss Sunshine doesn’t stand a chance, so why even nominate it? Nominate the three that really have a chance of winning.
Comment by Andrew James — June 25, 2009
Which is the same as Oscar.
But you’ve got to admit, the folks love a spectacle and more fodder on best picture probably will increase the chance of ratings. Which is what the Oscars are about these days anyway…Well, ratings and Box-Office Boosting and selling fashion mags.
Comment by Kurt Halfyard — June 25, 2009
Comment by Andy — June 25, 2009
I think we’re all lucky that consensus opinion when it comes to the Oscars is decidedly more high quality then the consensus opinion that results in the Grammys or the Emmys. Emmy politics IMO are much worse than Oscar politics. The snubs of so many HBO, Showtime, even Sci-Fi channel, shows in favor of stuff like Two and a Half Men, is infinately more of a snub to me then the Wrestler getting snubbed.
Comment by Goon — June 25, 2009
Comment by Henrik — June 25, 2009