New rule for Best Picture Nominees

Post Reply
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

I wouldn't doubt if it was Ganis' idea (or the Producers and PRs and Executive branch members) and they threatened to have the techs moved to another show and thus lined up the tech branches against the higher branches to push through the honorary change.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:
Maybe because I'm not American

HA!

No "HA". I meant that not living in America I couldnt watch the Oscars for the simple fact that in Italy, when I was a child, the show wasn't aired.

My "problem", which is not a problem at all, is that I don't like the reasons behind this change - it may have the good effects you mentioned but the TRUE reason is to honor a certain kind of American cinema that I personally hate. And then maybe it won't happen, but the true reason is this one.

Good to know that Bill Condon didnt agree with that OTHER decision. I wonder who took it then.




Edited By ITALIANO on 1246317375
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Post by OscarGuy »

Point of clarification. Damien has already stated categorically that Condon was opposed to the idea of moving the honorary awards out of the main ceremony.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

The Bill Condon show that you liked so much was, let's face it, perfectly in line with his brilliant idea of the ten Best Picture nominees, so it makes sense that you love both. (I wouldnt be surprised if he's behind the choice of deleting the Honorary Oscars from the "big night", but of course we will never know).

Groundless statement. I liked two of the three Condon films I've seen so much, and roughly the same percentage of the show he produced. Read my post. I'm critical of the show he produced, and this is without mentioning the horrible musical sequence in the middle, the almost inept In Memorial Segment, or the fact that I hate the fact that he has done away with the Honorary Oscars.

(LAST MINUTE EDIT - and the absence of clips! and the song medley! this is all on the record.)

Maybe because I'm not American

HA!

...and so I started following the Oscars before I could watch an Oscar show, I'm not as obsessed as others are about their potential as a tv program (and this despite the fact that I work in television).

I think 2008 was one of the worst shows I've seen and it featured some of the best winners. I'd prefer that to Juno winning at the tail end of a glorious night of entertainment.

I think that an institution - and the Academy Awards are, in many ways, an American institution - shouldnt change its rules with the television audience in mind. Dignity is more important, and before someone says something, yes, I think there is still some dignity left in the Academy Awards. They are not, and shouldnt become, just another ten-best list, they shouldnt "make everyone happy", they should be bold enough to make their sometimes certainly dubious selections - and we should be here to criticize them, and sometimes even dismiss them.

I don't understand why ten nominees has anything to do with what you or anyone is saying. I really don't. It doesn't change anything. It just means five other films most likely with no chance of winning will be nominated OR a movie released too late to really get seen by enough people to get nominated has a smaller chance of winning.

Good years will especially suffer from this. Take 1993, for example (I know, it's SO long ago, isnt it?). The Best Picture category was impressive: Schindler's List, The Remains of the Day, The Piano, In the Name of the Father - and The Fugitive, which took the "popular movie" spot. Had the nominees been ten even back then, we would get The Age of Innocence, true - but then we'd have almost certainly things like Philadelphia, Mrs Doubtfire, Sleepless in Seattle and, most importantly, Jurassic Park - which is exactly the kind of movie for which this change has been done.

Basically, your problem is that by expanding the nominees to ten, the Academy will see a worse spectrum of nominated films thus cheapening the title of Best Picture Nominee and Best Picture Winner itself.




Edited By Sabin on 1246302668
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

The Bill Condon show that you liked so much was, let's face it, perfectly in line with his brilliant idea of the ten Best Picture nominees, so it makes sense that you love both. (I wouldnt be surprised if he's behind the choice of deleting the Honorary Oscars from the "big night", but of course we will never know).

Maybe because I'm not American and so I started following the Oscars before I could watch an Oscar show, I'm not as obsessed as others are about their potential as a tv program (and this despite the fact that I work in television). I think that an institution - and the Academy Awards are, in many ways, an American institution - shouldnt change its rules with the television audience in mind. Dignity is more important, and before someone says something, yes, I think there is still some dignity left in the Academy Awards. They are not, and shouldnt become, just another ten-best list, they shouldnt "make everyone happy", they should be bold enough to make their sometimes certainly dubious selections - and we should be here to criticize them, and sometimes even dismiss them.

Good years will especially suffer from this. Take 1993, for example (I know, it's SO long ago, isnt it?). The Best Picture category was impressive: Schindler's List, The Remains of the Day, The Piano, In the Name of the Father - and The Fugitive, which took the "popular movie" spot. Had the nominees been ten even back then, we would get The Age of Innocence, true - but then we'd have almost certainly things like Philadelphia, Mrs Doubtfire, Sleepless in Seattle and, most importantly, Jurassic Park - which is exactly the kind of movie for which this change has been done.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

I don't think it's a European way of thinking. It's just making your point. I was just impressed you went there.

I want to reiterate by saying that at this point, I'm fairly certain that I could produce the greatest Oscar show in the history of the planet. I've been watching the show for a decade and a half now, and while I think Bill Condon et al produced a pretty darn good show this year, I think I know what makes a good show and a bad show. It wouldn't be my first choice to increase the nominees to ten, but on my list of things that are destroying the Oscars, "too many nominated films" isn't one of them.

The problem with the Oscars is that it isn't about the movies. The single best shows about the fucking movies was in 2007 (where each director introduced their film and spoke about them) and perhaps in 2002 with that fantastic Film Editing montage that emphasized just how the fuck editing affects the finished product. I loved what Condon et al did at the end with the montage of the nominated films inter-spliced with others from the past but how in God's green earth did anyone think keeping towards the very end was a good idea? Cut it up and show it throughout the entire show.

So, when I hear "Oh, no! Too many nominated films are going to ruin the Oscars!" I can't help but laugh a little bit because for too long, the emphasis has been so far away from the actual nominated films. Perhaps this will force the producers to actually think about how to integrate why these films are so good into the show itself.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:Sorry, I'm one day off a night shoot.
Well, slavery went on for years too. Not a good reason to make things even worse.
Um. Really? Don't get me wrong. It's pretty amazing you went there. But. Really?
What I meant was that - but it's probably a very European way of thinking - a fact that a bad habit is going on for years isnt a good reason to make it even worse. The Oscars are becoming more and more commercial, true, but do we really want them to be the Golden Globes?

But it's true that there are more serious problems in the world than this one.
Zahveed
Associate
Posts: 1838
Joined: Wed Nov 07, 2007 1:47 pm
Location: In Your Head
Contact:

Post by Zahveed »

Sabin wrote:Now, your next question is going to be "what defines twenty as too much and not ten?" And I don't have an answer for you

I thought it was because twenty is a larger number than ten. Not exactly the most accurate answer, but it's a good starting point.




Edited By Zahveed on 1246248379
"It's the least most of us can do, but less of us will do more."
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

Sorry, I'm one day off a night shoot.
Well, slavery went on for years too. Not a good reason to make things even worse.

Um. Really? Don't get me wrong. It's pretty amazing you went there. But. Really?

And you still havent answered my first, most important question : so I guess that twenty nominees would be even better..?

If twenty films were nominated, I think it would help the careers of those involved and bring in more attention to those films than before, but twenty nominees would be too much. Now, your next question is going to be "what defines twenty as too much and not ten?" And I don't have an answer for you, nor why four nominees is potentially better or worse. I'm not saying this is an ideal situation but one that I genuinely don't think is a big deal.
"How's the despair?"
cam
Assistant
Posts: 759
Joined: Tue Nov 20, 2007 12:27 pm
Location: Coquitlam BC Canada

Post by cam »

I heard about this new Oscar rule and wondered what all of you would be saying: some like it, and compare it to the year 1939, which had ten bona-fide great movies in its list( 1939, by the way, was a great artistic year--certainly for serious music--many composers wrote their finest work in that year)

Others don't like it for various reasons; they think ten is too many, especially if there are 5 for the other categories.

Some years ago I suggested a Best Oscar for Ensemble. If they are going to change a format, why not add that, or under the new rules, does best ensemble MEAN Best Picture?
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote:Are you bemoaning the fact that films will be nominated for the wrong reasons? That a bunch of films that are not worthy of nominations will slip through? That the whole thing will become about money? That the wrong films will win? That potentially great films poised for watershed Oscar victories will see greatness ripped from their fingers by pussyfoot has-been producers in retirement homes with no artistic taste?

The end's been going on for years.
Well, slavery went on for years too. Not a good reason to make things even worse.

And you still havent answered my first, most important question : so I guess that twenty nominees would be even better..?

And Damien, let's face it, the reason why Bill Condon had this brilliant idea wasnt so that "two or more left field films" would be nominated - I can tell you, and even if I wasnt there during that important high-level meeting please believe me, that nobody mentioned the sad fact that The Wrestler or The Visitor failed to be Best Picture nominees. Nobody cared about that. It was more about mobies like The Dark Knight and, I'm afraid, Mammia Mia.

But I agree with Sabin and others that the real problem is the disappearence of the honorary awards. This explains, even more clearly than the "ten nominees" rule (to which it's closely related), the "new" direction the Oscars are taking.
User avatar
Eric
Tenured
Posts: 2749
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:18 pm
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota
Contact:

Post by Eric »

Look, so long as Mo'Nique is in the running this year, I'll be content.
Damien
Laureate
Posts: 6331
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:43 pm
Location: New York, New York
Contact:

Post by Damien »

It is a very rare instance that a film I love is nominated for Best Picture (among my favorite movies last year were Paranoid Park, Flight Of The Red Balloon and Edge of Heavcen -- as if any of those were even seen by Academy voters), though sometimes a movie I like (such as Milk) is in the running. Even if there were 30 nominees, an obscure Iranian picture wouldn't have a shot.

Let's not forget that these are the Oscars, an Hollywood film industry prize bestowed bt people who think that A Beautiful Mind is a beautiful incisive character study and American Beauty is something profound. Their overall taste is not going to change just because there are more spots, and I would hope that no one here considers Academy Approval = Excellence. The Oscars are their own world, and must be observed much like a sporting event. But we can be guardedly optimistic that one or two more left field films might be in the running.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
kaytodd
Assistant
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2003 10:16 pm
Location: New Orleans

Post by kaytodd »

thefilmexperience.net has posted its mid-year predictions for Oscar noms. They rank them 1 to 10 based on their likelihood of being nominated. If their top ten list comes to pass, it will be a pretty standard lineup:
1. Invictus--Clint Eastwood directing Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela. Nuff said.
2. The Lovely Bones--Another Oscar winning director. A best selling tearjerker novel combining tragedy and the supernatural.
3. Precious--the indie slot. Audience Award and Grandy Jury Prize winner at Sundance. A very dysfunctional family in Harlem. The Academy will likely take the opportunity to bring attention to director Lee Daniels, who produced the high profile indie films Monster's Ball and The Woodsman.
4. Public Enemies--very high profile project with a director and actors who are not strangers to the Academy. I do not think it would make the top five but if it gets good reviews and does good business it will make the top ten.
5. Nine--never saw the stage production and am not familiar with the music. But I would repeat what I said about Public Enemies.
I would not be surprised if these were the nominees under the old rules.
6. An Education--the new rules may allow for two Sundance standouts. First rate cast.
7. Bright Star--the Masterpiece Theatre slot. Great reviews at Cannes and Academy members would like to welcome Jane Campion back.
8. Avatar--Cameron's return to directing brings a lot of attention to this project. Will make the cut if reviews and business are good. Heroic and epic tale with lots of special effects.
9. Shutter Island--Marty alone makes this a candidate for the top ten unless it really stinks. I do not think it will stink. The trailer makes me think this will be a crowd pleaser and do big business.
10. Biutiful--foreign film slot. A director who is no stranger to the Academy. Stars recent winner Javier Bardem and an interesting sounding story.

I think that is a reasonable list of the nominees under the new rules.
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Post by Sabin »

As apparently the only person on this Board who doesn't think this is a terrible idea, I don't really have time to respond to everything directed my way. I'd like to quote Italiano and respond in kind:
Still, if all this is done so that more people can see The Visitor on dvd, well, how shall I put it, I think one can live even without such a unique experience (and we all know that it's exactly a movie like The Visitor which COULD be nominated, rather than, say, a truly great but obscure Iranian film)....

Save for last year, when it was Milk and nothing close behind it, I pretty much really enjoy two nominated films a year nominated for Best Picture. Opened up to ten, I might enjoy three. What I'm saying is that I don't think this will change terribly much. The calibre of the films will remain the same. Last year was a fluke of miserable taste. The prior year saw The Diving Bell and the Butterfly and Into the Wild as the likely runners up to Atonement and Juno, but the year prior it could just as easily have been Walk the Line or even Memoirs of a Geisha close behind Capote or Munich, which I like much more. It goes both ways. I would call any film mentioned above a masterpiece, so essentially the net is being cast wider to pull in more of the same, which brings me to my next point (before continuing to the remainder of Italiano's quote)...

What this does is turn the Oscar Race into the Oscars themselves, which has been happening for years now anyway.


And if I have to be honest, while I'm sure that one of the good side effects of a film award is to help the box-office of movies, if rules are created based on that, or to increase that, well, it's the beginning of the end.

What end are you talking about?

Are you bemoaning the fact that films will be nominated for the wrong reasons? That a bunch of films that are not worthy of nominations will slip through? That the whole thing will become about money? That the wrong films will win? That potentially great films poised for watershed Oscar victories will see greatness ripped from their fingers by pussyfoot has-been producers in retirement homes with no artistic taste?

The end's been going on for years.


The true travesty is that honorary Oscars are now off the telecast. This is a truly miserable choice that would have denied the world an introduction to Stanley Donen or Ernst Lehmann.




Edited By Sabin on 1246151493
"How's the despair?"
Post Reply

Return to “82nd Nominations and Winners”