Page 3 of 7
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:20 pm
by Eric
Big Magilla wrote:I tried to come up with an alternative Oscar Shouldabeens list based on ten nominees for best picture, just to see how it would look, but I couldn't do it.
Never fear, someone else already did.
http://www.nicksflickpicks.com/TenWideExperiment.html
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 12:05 pm
by Big Magilla
The more I think about this idea the less I like it
Any pretense that the Academy Awards are first and foremost about artistic quality goes out the window with this. Frank Capra and Gregory Peck must be spinning in their graves.
I tried to come up with an alternative Oscar Shouldabeens list based on ten nominees for best picture, just to see how it would look, but I couldn't do it.
It would be easy to just take my ten best lists and populate the best picture nominees with those, but there are films on the lower half of my top ten lists that I love but just don't see as as a candidate for best picture.
It's too bad the Academy didn't put more thought into this before voting. Although I think five is the right number, what might work is a compromise whereby ten films are selected as semi-finalists, which are then narrowed down to five. Ideally this would be done in two stages, with the semi-finalists announced before nomination morning. However, since everyone with an Academy membership votes for best picture, this might be a little cumbersome, so rather than have a second vote, perhaps they could announce the ten nominees at the start of the telecast, then announce the top five vote-getters from which the winner will be drawn. Sort of like American Idol, but since they're dumbing the Oscars down to appeal to reality TV show watchers, why not?
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 10:20 am
by Sabin
The Academy Award for Best Picture should be used to grant attention upon films of merit and bolster their box office, and yet with every passing year this becomes less and less the case. The Lord of the Rings has come and gone, and the number of true hits in its wake has been reduced to a handful. The Academy's taste is just anathema to most moviegoers, plain and simple. The big problem is that the movies nominated are middle-brow prestige tailor-made for the Academy rest home. Simply put: now everybody realizes that these films are in no way the five best of the year.
I say it's cool. The people I've talked to have said the following:
A) Are there really ten great films every year?...YES! But they're still not going to be nominated. In taking last year's model, we will receive two moneymaking epics (The Dark Knight, WALL*E...and yes they are both of those things), two faded Derby middleweights (Revolutionary Road, Doubt), and something from bumfuck nowhere (The Visitor, Vicky Cristina Barcelona). Something small that needs help. Or smaller than these two. If a Tom McCarthy film is nominated for Best Picture, his star goes through the roof and nine other nominated films does nothing to change that. It's the label: BEST. PICTURE. Nobody is going to deny someone their due if their film is nominated for Best Picture. Which brings me to my next point...
B) Are people going to watch ten nominated pictures when they don't watch five?...NO! But if something like The Visitor is on DVD already, they certainly might a shit load more than otherwise. This is the purpose of these nominations.
C) Will this change something like Slumdog Millionaire from winning?...NO! But it will change something like The Departed from winning. That film reeks of compromise plurality vote (one I would in a heartbeat vote for over its ilk). But imagine if something like Pan's Labyrinth or Children of Men had received a top ten number of votes which judging from their hefty nod take is entirely possible, who's to say? We spend so much time speculating why people vote the way they do. The answer is simply: they LIKED the film more than the others. The other categories don't work like that. Actors, Writers, Director...sometimes they specifically are liked. NOBODY GIVES A SHIT ABOUT PRODUCERS! What more nominated films means is more nominated films for people to truly, passionately have the chance to like. There have been many years where I am not truly passionate about a single film. Basically, it becomes harder to predict the winner. Good.
D) Doesn't this cheapen the Oscar?...is that really possible at this point? They nominated Stephen Daldry's The Reader over The Dark Knight and WALL*E. I realize this shitty film has its defenders on this board but in no way is The Reader indicative of the public's consciousness or anything bold or new in filmmaking that deserves honor, and in that The Dark Knight and WALL*E (the two movies most cited with this shift) are among the most raptly received movies of the previous year and responsible for billions of dollars in revenue, the lasting legacy of The Reader will be akin to the Holocaust itself: "This can never happen again."
E) Best Picture Nominee The Great Debaters...yup, that's probably going to happen. Movies that people from the other branches have the good taste to ignore will make it in. Not the worst thing in the world either.
Edited By Sabin on 1246030051
Posted: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:11 am
by ITALIANO
For once we all agree, I hope, that this is a dreadful decision. Every time a selection becomes wider, it loses prestige and appeal - this is a fact. And especially in this period, when we sometimes have problems finding even just FIVE worthy Best Picture nominees, one can imagine what will happen with ten. One shouldn't even name movies as examples - of course there will always be good movies and bad movies among the nominees, and there will still be great movies which wont be nominated (and with ten available spots, this will lead to the Academy being even more criticized) - but by making the field larger, the term "Best Picture nominee" will lose some of its importance. And this is objective (though I feel, don't ask me why, that for a certain reason some on this board will now - or soon - find this choice genial).
For me, much of the fun of the pre-nominations period was pointing out how movies this board fell in love with and WANTED to see nominated didnt really have a chance. And, of course, always being proven right on nominations day. Now all this will be over. So it's true, with this new rule "masterpieces" like Dreamgirls or The Dark Knight WOULD get a Best Picture nomination - but did any of us really lose a night's sleep when they weren't? (Well, maybe, especially in one case, some did).
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:26 pm
by anonymous1980
Eric wrote:To that extent, I'd rather see 10 The Readers nominated next year than even one or two Pirates of the Caribbeans or Harry Potters.
I wouldn't mind seeing The Prisoner of Azkaban make the Top 10 Best Picture nominations back in 2004.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:59 pm
by dws1982
I really like Jonathan Demme--even his much derided work like Beloved and The Manchurian Candidate (no defenses of Philadelphia though). But I didn't like Rachel Getting Married much at all. I'm just not a fan of movies or plays (it could've been a stage play easily) or TV Shows about dysfunctionals getting together to sit around and argue. It was one of the most visually uninteresting and least cinematic things I've ever seen from Demme.
The Reader was worse, though, but less disappointing.
Edited By dws1982 on 1245978247
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:28 pm
by Big Magilla
Okri wrote:The Reader is the type of film that makes you doubt the capability of the medium it's in. Rachel Getting Married raises one's hope for its future.
Yes, the hope that we may never see its likes again. :p
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 7:24 pm
by Okri
The Reader is the type of film that makes you doubt the capability of the medium it's in. Rachel Getting Married raises one's hope for its future.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:50 pm
by Damien
Penelope wrote:The Reader isn't a *great* film, but it is vastly superior to Rachel Getting Married.
I hated them both! 
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:17 pm
by Penelope
The Reader isn't a *great* film, but it is vastly superior to Rachel Getting Married.
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:07 pm
by Big Magilla
kaytodd wrote:I would also like to stick up for The Reader. I liked the book but I thought it would be very difficult to bring to the screen and I was right. My expectations were lowered but I really enjoyed the film and the performances. I thought Daldry did the best he could with difficult material. But its director and BP noms should have gone to Demme and Rachel Getting Married.
You had me until the last sentence. I hated Rachel Getting Married with the passion most people here have reserved for The Reader. 
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:58 pm
by kaytodd
Damien wrote:The use of clips from non-nominated films this year was similarly an attempt to give the show greater popular appeal in a year when there was such a ghastley nominee as The Reader.
One of the things I liked about the last Oscar telecast was the extensive use of clips from very recent films. I got a lot of laughs from how Damien made fun of Gil Cates' idiotic themes for his shows in IO and IO2. But "Romance in 2008", "Comedy in 2008", "Adventure in 2008" with a lot of clips from 2008 films worked for me. It saved us from clips we have all seen many times (how many times has an Oscar telecast shown Bette Davis saying "Fasten your seatbelts...?). Also, I do not remember a previous Oscar telecast doing something like this, so it was something different. And that is something to be cherished in any Oscar telecast.
I think it is good for people who currently work in the film industry to pat themselves on the back. It reminds the public that good films are being made now. The clips were well chosen and featured many of the presenters and other actors who appeared on the show.
And, as a practical matter, all of those films whose clips were shown are available on DVD. On a related note, I liked how the telecast ended with clips from upcoming 2009 releases. Several actors shown in those clips were also shown during the ceremony. If they do this every year, AMPAS can be accused of crass self-promotion. But I thought it was nice that this year's show was dedicated to the work of the people who were in the Kodak Theatre that evening.
P.S., I would also like to stick up for The Reader. I liked the book but I thought it would be very difficult to bring to the screen and I was right. My expectations were lowered but I really enjoyed the film and the performances. I thought Daldry did the best he could with difficult material. But its director and BP noms should have gone to Demme and Rachel Getting Married.
Edited By kaytodd on 1245963643
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:24 pm
by Big Magilla
Good to know, although I wasn't even aware Jackson had a Christmas release!
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:59 pm
by Damien
Big Magilla wrote:The Original BJ wrote:I'd never thought I'd say this, but I'm sick of the press/industry beating up on The Reader. Today Samuel L. Jackson was quoted in the Times as asking "Who the hell wants to see The Reader?" Well, more people than who wanted to see Milk and Frost/Nixon, for starters.
Obviously enough Academy members who opted to watch the screener and vote for it in various categories.
A better question might be "who the hell wants to see the crap Samuel L. Jackson has been making of late?"
The Reader made twice as much money as Jackson's Christmas release, The Spirit.
Edited By Damien on 1245960019
Posted: Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:25 pm
by Big Magilla
The Original BJ wrote:I'd never thought I'd say this, but I'm sick of the press/industry beating up on The Reader. Today Samuel L. Jackson was quoted in the Times as asking "Who the hell wants to see The Reader?" Well, more people than who wanted to see Milk and Frost/Nixon, for starters.
Obviously enough Academy members who opted to watch the screener and vote for it in various categories.
A better question might be "who the hell wants to see the crap Samuel L. Jackson has been making of late?"