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.”Ganis assumes that all ten nominees will be great. What an optimist, he is!
We haven't seen 10 Best Pictures nominess since 1943 (Casablanca won... definitely one of Oscar's smartest moments). They settled on the traditional five for the 1944 film year and it's stayed that way ever since.
This could mean that anything remotely "baity" will get nominated each year. We're in for whole lineups consisting of the Frost/Nixons, Seabiscuits, and Finding Neverlands of the world, whole lineups populated with Doubts: films that inexplicably win favor over superior films or films which aren't really good enough to be in the running but all the prestige elements are in place.
I can only assume the recent snubs for critically beloved and audience supported films like WALL•E and The Dark Knight have finally started embarrassing the Academy. But widening the field doesn't necessarily mean that the quality or box office tallies rise with it. What a pessimist I am.
Last year for example, who knows what it would have looked like. It seems like these eight would have made it...
We don't know for sure. The anti-genre voters are still anti-genre (i.e. they can't take animation, comedy, superheros, horror and sci-fi seriously, always equating "message" and traditional drama with quality) no matter how wide the ballot gets.
But perhaps this does mean that less traditional genre leaning films that got some awards traction like Dancer in the Dark (better than any nominated film in 2000), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (better than any nominated film in 2004), A History of Violence (better than most of the nominated films of 2005) or WALL•E (better than any nominated film in 2008) have a better shot at the big honor? Maybe it does. Maybe it doesn't. We'll see.
It sure makes predicting things this year suddenly more challenging. We've never seen the outcome of the shotgun approach to Best Picture nominating in our lifetimes. Will this change last longer than their sudden new category for "original comedy score" -- one of their more bizarre decisions -- which lasted from 1995 through 1998?
*
Posts
224 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 224 of 224Really? More people harp on Denzel's win than Al's? You know who Al Pacino was thought to have robbed, right? That's right, Denzel. Denzel isn't thought to have robbed anyone (I would've voted for Denzel in both those races, fwiw). Berry? Damn straight I'll complain about her win. Hudson? Meh, I love Blanchett to the point of madness, but she's lead, so I'm fine with it.
So play the race card if you want, and yeah, I'll state that Hollywood has a tremendous amount of problems when it comes to negotiating/depicting race, but this is one conversation where I genuinely think you're wrong and doing more harm to the discussion than credit.
Also, I should state that I'm black, so if you genuinely believe I'm a bigot based on the comments I've made, then clearly, there's no where for this conversation to go.
We're on the second page, bitches! I've never seen that happen on here like, ever.
Jennifer Hudson fully earned her Oscar win. But that Beyonce nonsense from before had to be a joke, right?
But back to the "Oscars 10" discussion, I think that this could be a great thing. It would have made my Oscarwatching year this year if "The Dark Knight" and "WALL-E" had made it into best picture. It looks like there's at least an active interest in widening the playing field, so I'll be optimistic and see what they come up with. If they end up picking the usual middling nominees, then I'll join the chorus and complain too. But I want to give them the benefit of the doubt at least this one time.
Arkaan,
If you are Black then you have been deluded by Whites waaay more than you should be. Entirely way more people harp on Denzel's win, they say Russell Crowe should've won. I don't see anyone complaining about Al Pacino's win at all. So wtf are you talking about. On Almost every Oscar site I go to Awardsdaily, Awards circuit (although that one has slowed down), this one and IMDB Oscar boards people complain about wins for minorities far more than Whites(that they think are undeserved). No I'm not barking up the wrong tree if you don't see it than you are a part of it and that is a shame. Why are you still harping about Berry when Swank won one for her mediocre performance in Million Dollar Baby? Complain about that one.
The only site where readers don't complain as much is Incontention and Ropesofsilicon.
As for the topic, it doesn't bother me much. If films like The Hurt Locker and Sugar are included then the better.
Question: Why do people put anonymous and then put their name at the bottom? Instead of putting it in NAME/URL...
Do people really think movies like Frozen River or Rachel Getting Married would have gotten nominated last year with this system? Voters would have still gone with titles like Changeling. Plus, the likes of Christopher Nolan still wouldn't have been nominated effectively ruling it out of contention thus elimating all potential "ooh could it upset?" debates.
This just stinks. It's stupid. As others have said, we'll end up with movies nominated for two Oscars one of which is Best Picture. I don't necessarily agree that just because movies aren't technically proficient or the like that it shouldn't be considered for best picture, but when stuff like My Big Fat Greek Wedding can get into a best picture lineup with only an "original" screenplay nod to its name that just isn't right. (although Four Weddings and a Funeral doesn't feel nearly as bad).
And as someone else also said, even though ten titles will get picture nominees people will see right through it and be able to realise which titles are the actual nominees and which are just fillers.
Because you have to have one of those accounts.
Nate
ummmmm....
i seriously have no idea what the F y'all are talking about let's try to stay on topic.
I have in no way encouraged bigotry on this site and I hope i'm misreading this thread that seems to indicate that my beloved baby (the film experience) somehow encourage this.
I am a known attack dog on Hollywood for their inability to figure out how to use the talents of great black actresses fer chrissakes.
anyway. moving on.
OH MY GOD I JUST REALISED THE BFCA ARE GOING TO SHIT THEMSELVES WHEN THEY REALISE HOW MUCH "INFLUENCE" THEY CAN NOW HAVE.
Sorry for caps but the BFCA are so horrible.
Oh, and what about when something gets left of the top ten that everyone loved? WHAT THEN?! The Academy are backing themselves into a corner. They're not going to be able to say "well there are only five slots but there were at least 7 movies that had so much passion and love behind them."
oh and nate you don't need an account to use NAME/URL.
the URL is optional and the NAME will highlight your name before the comment (like ARKAAN did) and it's super easy to read.
Nathaniel,
You don't encourage it at all, but some of your readers are a part of it. You do complain about Hilary Swank and Marion wins as much as Berry's :-)
Anyway, as for the topic I think people are seriously overreacting. Don't we get crap films every year anyway? Why don't we look at the bright side. This could be a good thing and make the race a lot more interesting.
Nate
In regards to this year I think it definitely helps Avatar (sci-fi), Bright Star (women-y), Precious (black), Shutter Island (horror) and Up (animated) don't you think?
Imagine though if something like Antichrist was able to sneak in? I think it'd be worth it just for that.
anonymous, I only brought jennifer Hudson up because someone else did while babblin away about the perfections of beyonce. The fact that you think I don't like jennifer Hudson is because she's black makes me think you only like her cause she's black. If she was white you would probably not even like her or know she exists. I believe josh brolin shouldnt have been nominated for milk or brad Pitt for Benjamin and I think the fact that nicole Kidman won over salma heyak is ridiculous. Robert Downey jr. being nominated for tropic thunder is a tragedy. There white and i disagree for them even having a chance at winning
. I never said I lost respect for jennifer, I said I lost it for the academy. She was okay but to oscar standards(which should be high) she was boring, ordinary, and extremely forgettable.
Jesus god, Nathaniel, please do away with anonymous commenting. Force people to type something, ANYTHING, into the name field. They can put whatever they want in the URL field.
Juno101,
It made no sense to me to comment on Jhud when the discussion was about Beyonce's acting. I could only see it if you were one of Beyonce's stan. And maybe you are.
Why would you lose repsect for the Academy. Shouldn't you have lost it when Judy Garland lost to Grace Kelly??? Or when Hilary Swank won for Million Dollar Baby. or countless others.
If she was White I would still know who she is. If I know who Vera Farmiga is or Jena Malone. I'm pretty sure I'd know who she was.
~Zee
Anonymous(Zee)
I mentioned her because she was mentioned. I was mad at the win and I saw my opportunity to say something. There is a big connection with beyonce and jennifer. That's not the only thing I'm upset with about the academy. I thought crash was the worst tragedy of them all but I don't know the full list of unworthy winners so maybe there's even worst winners. And what's your obsession with hilary swank, you always mention her. Is it because she's white? And atleast judy garland and grace kelly were both worthy of the award. The women from babel and abigail breslin gave performances lightyears better than jennifer Hudson.
oo!!!it was a great day for him.
goatdog if i could figure out how to do away with anonymous commenting, I would. unfortunately there doesn't seem to be an option that includes the name/url function (the easiest one to use for people who don't belong to livejournal, wordpress or blogger or some such and I don't think people should have to be bloggers to comment) that doesn't also include anonymous.
I hate the anonymous option too.
any suggestions? as to how to let people comment without having to register. I myself never comment on sites that require i register.
Nate....
I think we frequent in entirely different oscar circles. I haven't heard one person complain that Washington robbed Crowe. Maybe Roger Ebert, but he surely doesn't count as he promotes films/performers from different races with regularity (to the point where I think a film is priveleged if it's about race for him). I hear complaints about Pacino's career award fairly regularly. I don't go to Awards Daily, Awards Circuit, or the imdb boards because I find the level of discussion to be ridiculously low (especially on the imdb boards. That's like arguing about segregated proms in Alabama.
I hate Berry's win more than I hate Swank's win. But I hate everything to do with Marc Forester. It's not either/or. Complaining about one doesn't exclude me from complaining about the other.
I'm sorry if you think I'm part of the problem, though.
[@N: If you select the option that says "Registered Users - includes OpenID," won't that work? That still gives them a field to type in a name, and I think an optional URL, but only precludes Anonymous posting. I might be wrong, but I think so.]
Pacino's win is always seen as merely a make up Oscar.
Seriously i have no idea what they are talking about......
Post a Comment