POLL: How do you feel about the Academy’s decision to expand the Best Picture category to 10 nominees?

Posted by · 4:47 pm · June 29th, 2009

It’s been such a busy day I neglected to mention our newst poll, which has been in the sidebar there since last night.  The headline says it all, so be heard.  And if you haven’t already done so in the latest Off the Carpet column, tell us why you say “yay” or “nay” in the comments section below.

→ 31 Comments Tags: | Filed in: Daily

31 responses so far

  • 1 6-29-2009 at 5:29 pm

    Godfather said...

    I’m not in favor of the change, specifically because it has been so rare that even five “best”-type films are produced in a single year. As I’ve said elsewhere, “best” is a construct and not a guarantee that the best films will be nominated. Those who vote have various agendas, which is likely to generate a less-than “best” list of 10 films.

  • 2 6-29-2009 at 5:30 pm

    kmoore8435 said...

    I’ll start with something simple…I like it.

    I’m sure most of you cynics will give me reason to reply later.

  • 3 6-29-2009 at 5:37 pm

    Kay said...

    I like it. Better films will most likely get nominated that way better films like The Wrestler and Wall-E this year will get nominated.
    OT: Kris you owned Ryan with your comment over at AwardsDaily.

  • 4 6-29-2009 at 5:55 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    kmoore8435: “The rest of you cynics” isn’t exactly the most felicitous way to go about a conversation. Why is it cynicism to simply disagree with a decision?

  • 5 6-29-2009 at 6:17 pm

    kmoore8435 said...

    Wow, Kris, I feel honored you addressed me personally. Let me say a bit more. I visit your site, along with other film sites, because I LOVE movies. But…If I’m allowed to exaggerate a little, most of these sites seem to be a breeding ground for Armond White mimi-me’s, who just don’t seem to really enjoy movies. Sure, we’ll all have varying opinions on what’s good or bad but there seems to my a dark cloud of cynicism in film criticism.

    Say what you will about Roger Ebert, but you can sense a genuine love from him regarding his criticism of film (his Transformers rant from earlier today aside). I cannot say that for everyone. Many of the people who post on these sites seem to be angry failed artists who’ve decided to whine about and rag on everything and everyone because they weren’t able to achieve the same degree of success. Sure, I’m generalizing a bit, but you don’t feel that negative energy?

    Now back to the topic…At years end, critics and bloggers alike publish 10 BEST LISTS, all with varying results. So why is it so hard to wrap your head around 10 nominees? At the end of the day, only ONE movie will win. Every winter, I watch and read as people complain about their favorite film being left out the BIG 5, well here’s hoping that with 10 slots the Academy can get it right

  • 6 6-29-2009 at 6:25 pm

    Andrew L. said...

    Because by disagreeing, you’re basically saying it’s a bad idea/won’t improve anything.

    On the other hand, it’s fallacious to think expanding the number of nominees is an improvement; there wasn’t a lack of good movies to fill in the “Best Picture – 5” (at least in terms of the collective opinion). There was just the prevalence of genre-biases are dumb voting.

    HOWEVER, this is ultimately a fallout of last year and TDK’s loss of a BP nomination. I’m a part of the camp who feels the movie was a Ledger-sentiment-spillover which elevated it into a critical mammoth (and I actually preferred Iron Man, #9 on my list).

    TR wasn’t spectacular (were any of the nominees? Honestly?), but it hardly deserves to be scapegoated and viewed as “the piece of shit that stole TDK’s nomination.”

  • 7 6-29-2009 at 6:26 pm

    Andrew L. said...

    and dumb voting*

  • 8 6-29-2009 at 6:33 pm

    kmoore8435 said...

    I feel that I see atleast 10 great films each year, but maybe I’m too nice.

    Just think, had this been in place last year there would have been a chance for “Happy Go Lucky” “The Dark Knight” “The Wrestler” “Wall-E” “Revolutionary Road” “Doubt” and “Frozen River” …all of which I thought were GREAT!

  • 9 6-29-2009 at 6:36 pm

    Patryk said...

    Poor move based on what the Academy believes
    will bring in a more mainstream audience. It won’t change the Academy’s tastes, however. And why did they eliminate the clips of the acting nominees? Those embarassing testimonials to the nominees wasted too much time.

  • 10 6-29-2009 at 6:37 pm

    JC said...

    Well, I’m of the wait-and-see attitude. If films like The Hurt Locker and and some foreign-language contenders find their way into the mix, we’ll probably all think it wasn’t such a bad idea after all.

    Andrew L.: Well, with a ten film Best Picture list, that only increases the possibility of a fan favourite like Iron Man (which DID make the AFI Top 10 list) making the cut. It wasn’t on my Top 10 (or even 20, out of the 45-50 2008 films I’ve seen) list, but I recognize its popularity, and its good reviews, so I wouldn’t be all that bothered by its inclusion on such a list. It’s not like critically-reviled films like Transformers have a shot anyways.

  • 11 6-29-2009 at 6:39 pm

    kmoore8435 said...

    Patryk, I agree with you. The testimonials were pretty :-/

  • 12 6-29-2009 at 6:49 pm

    Andrew L. said...

    JC: Right, but the “Best Picture – 5” is ideally the representation of the best in any given year–not “good,” but”great.”

    Expanding it to 10 nominations dilutes the prestige and inevitably make room for the “good” and possibly the “all-right” / “it had good intentions.”

  • 13 6-29-2009 at 6:54 pm

    JC said...

    Andrew: It’s so difficult to get a large group of people to even agree on what constitutes a “good”, much less a “great” film, that I don’t see the other five nominees being of a much lower (or higher, to be sure) quality than the original five. Switch ’em out, whatever…I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve felt that the Screenplay nominees that weren’t nominated for the big prize deserved the BP nom more…now they’ll probably get it.

  • 14 6-29-2009 at 7:12 pm

    JC said...

    Following up that Screenplay comment, the Oscars have a tendency to nominate films for Best Picture that originated in novel or stage form, as opposed to original screenplays, where (often) the more original or inventive work is done (which is to be expected, given that many of the novels or stage plays are from many, many years back, and sometimes feel a touch musty, or no longer culturally relevant). We should actually break down the numbers, to see what percentage of Best Picture nominees originated in the Adapted Screenplay field.

  • 15 6-29-2009 at 7:31 pm

    JC said...

    For the record, though, I do agree that that idea of a film winning Best Picture with 11% of the vote is silly, but then again, winning with 21% of the vote is rather silly as well.

  • 16 6-29-2009 at 8:49 pm

    Me said...

    I have a few questions Kristofer concerning your predictions:

    1. Is Meryl Streep the lead character or the supporting character of Julie&Julia? What is your source?

    2. Why has Shutter Island been left out of the best picture, directing, actor and screenplay categories? What happened?

    Thanks in advance

  • 17 6-29-2009 at 9:46 pm

    Joel said...

    I liked it a lot. There seems to be a lot of circular logic surrounding this. When kmoore8435 makes the point that the Academy can’t get “the BIG 5” right…well…that’s the whole point. They’re trying to make it right. If you’re not happy, you won’t ever be, because you weren’t happy before. Then what will the AMPAS do? They’re trying to appeal to the audience which was a big issue with the snub of The Dark Knight (which is only one example, as there are many others, so don’t give me a “not-everyone-liked-Dark-Knight rant) last year. People were saying that the AMPAS needed to appeal to the audiences to gain any sort of respect, but now that they’re trying to do that, the same people are getting mad at them for the exact thing they wanted to do. It seems unfair to jump down their throats, you know? I’m one of the few admirers of the decision; I think it’s ballsy. However, nixing categories, like they did to the Song and Honorary ones, IS a bad idea. That’s where the compromising of their whole agenda happens, not by opening the field to allow more movies in. Does anyone get what I’m saying? I’m not trying to be harsh or argumentative; I just think people are reading incorrect things into the move and then criticizing it for those things.

  • 18 6-29-2009 at 9:47 pm

    Derek 8-Track said...

    I think I’m going to have to experience it before I can say. I’m experiencing wonder more than I am yay or nay

  • 19 6-29-2009 at 9:48 pm

    Joel said...

    Oops, I didn’t mean to call out kmoore8435 for that. Sorry. I think I read that phrase as you saying something someone else said. If that makes sense. Apology in advance.

  • 20 6-29-2009 at 10:00 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    kmoore, that’s all well and good but I don’t consider myself from the Armond White school.

  • 21 6-30-2009 at 12:17 am

    Jonathan Spuij said...

    I believe it sucks and they will again abolish it for the 2011 ceremony.

  • 22 6-30-2009 at 1:36 am

    Glenn said...

    If the biggest branch of the academy – the actors – couldn’t even get Sally Hawkins a nomination over Angelina Jolie then i doubt the film she was the star of would have made the final ten. Same goes for so many movies like “Rachel Getting Married” and so on.

    I always find ten movies I love from any given year… but a lot of the time they’re not Oscar-y movies. I tend to throw a bit of genre in like horror, or a documentary or so on. I can’t see the Academy doing that.

    In regards to the poll, I didn’t vote. I am neither for nor against. I am waiting to see what the Academy actually delivers to decide.

    Although, here’s a thought: Maybe all the disposable awards bodies out there like the retched BFCA will be more careful about what they put in their top tens from now on.

  • 23 6-30-2009 at 7:23 am

    John said...

    I like it.

    Every year there are 2 or 3 films that miss out that everyone cries and cries and cries about (including me). And now there’s a strong chance that those 2 or 3 will make it in (based on many pre-cursors/all the guilds/BAFTA’s/GGlobes, etc.).

    And with nominees, the possibilities of an upset win becomes greater and more exciting.

    The Oscars are a way to honor movies. 10 instead of 5? I think it’s fun and pretty awesome.

    All this talk of ‘Ohhh, 5 was more prestigious’. I understand what some people are saying. But it just doesn’t bother me, at all.

  • 24 6-30-2009 at 8:12 am

    The Dude said...

    I voted thumbs up. I know there are a million reasons why this shouldn’t have been done, but my love for “The Wrestler” outweighs all of it. If this sytem were implemented last year, “The Wrestler” would have received a nod easily. Forget all the politics, schematics, prestige, marketing, etc…if at least one truly great movie ends up making the cut because of the change, than I’m for it.

  • 25 6-30-2009 at 9:49 am

    Jonathan Spuij said...

    Well spoken Dude. The Wrestler did more for me than any of the 5 nominees this year (even though Slumdog was fantastic, and other 3 were really good).

  • 26 6-30-2009 at 12:29 pm

    John said...

    And that’s just it.

    Chances are that ‘The Wrestler’ was somewhere in last years 6-10. Probably.

    Wouldn’t it have been more fun last year after the nominees came out (with a 10 nominee list) to see ‘The Wrestler ‘ there and contemplate/fool around with theories on why ‘The Wrestler’ could have come up along the left side with a chance for the win (even though it prob wouldn’t have happened).

    Still think the 10 nominee thing is a fun move.

  • 27 6-30-2009 at 12:41 pm

    Kristopher Tapley said...

    I say again, what is a Best Picture worth if it’s one of 10? It becomes painfully obvious at that point which films needed the crutch of an extra five nods to get there. It’s diminishing.

  • 28 6-30-2009 at 7:09 pm

    John said...

    I know I’m in the minority, but I just don’t see it as diminishing which ever way you want to turn it.

    I think it’s an expanded celebration of the ten “best” films of the year.

    Hell, hundreds upon hundreds are relased per year.

    I liked the celebration at 5, and I’m fine with 10; especially if it brings more interest of movies/movie-GOINGto the table.

  • 29 6-30-2009 at 7:10 pm

    John said...

    Sorry for the worst editing/spelling job of all time for my last post.

  • 30 7-02-2009 at 6:51 am

    Me said...

    Thanks a lot for answering :/

  • 31 7-02-2009 at 8:29 pm

    head_wizard said...

    “I say again, what is a Best Picture worth if it’s one of 10? It becomes painfully obvious at that point which films needed the crutch of an extra five nods to get there. It’s diminishing.”

    Well said Kris and by the way great argument with Ryan on awardsdaily