Film Bitch History
Oscar History

The Film Experience™ was created by Nathaniel R. Gemini, Cinephile, Actressexual. All material herein is written and copyrighted by Nathaniel or a member of our team as noted.


Powered by Squarespace
Don't Miss This!
Comment Fun

RIP Peter Fonda 

"He should've totally won the Oscar for his sensitive and subtle turn in Ulee's Gold" - Claran

"You're right, it is hard to look beyond Easy Rider in most assessments of his career, so it's great to hear more about these other films..." -Edward

Keep TFE Strong

We're looking for 500... no 461 Patron SaintsIf you read us daily, please be one.  Your suscription dimes make an enormous difference. Consider...

I ♥ The Film Experience



Directors of For Sama

Lulu Wang (The Farewell)
Ritesh Batra (Photograph)
Schmidt & Abrantes (Diamantino)
Wanuri Kahiu (Rafiki)
Jia Zhang-ke (Ash is Purest White)

What'cha Looking For?
« No hay banda. No hay linka. | Main | Red Carpet: Serious Actresses, Voices of Reason, Flamboyant Firemen. »

10 Best Picture Nominees... OR LESS

Just when we were getting acclimated to the new system of ten best picture nominees, Oscar is changing up their rules again. Deadline reports that after carefully studying their voting data, the Academy's governing board has decided that that Ten Best Picture Nominees thing was perhaps a little too generous. 'Shouldn't there be some threshhold of passion for a film to win that coveted "best picture" title' they asked themselves.

Their answer was "yes".

How much passion will be required exactly? The magic number is 5%. In short, a film will have to win at least 5% of #1 votes in the nomination balloting in order to join the Best Picture Lineup. There'll be no less than 5 Best Picture nominees in any given year and no more than 10. So one could say they're splitting the difference between the old system and the new.

Best Thing About This Change
It'll be quite unpredictable. We won't know until Oscar nomination morning how many "Best Pictures" we're getting. Otherwise I can't see an upside. We'll still get those pictures that we scratch our heads over "how did that get in there?! That doesn't belong!" -- don't think for a moment, for instance, that you can wipe out choices like The Blind Side. After all, we had those kind of decisions in the days of five nominees. Bad taste is indestructable!

The ZZZ Thing About This Change
I suspect other pundits will disagree but I don't see how this change means anything at all in terms of precursor madness. Not all precursor awards -- those would be tastemakers that proceed AMPAS's 'final say' -- are bound and determined to predict the Oscars but they'll stick with 10 nominees anyway as it gives them more wiggle room in the mirroring.

The Worst Thing About This Change
If you value visual and numerical symmetry as I do -- and boy do I -- you'll hate that you won't be able to line up various years in neat chart formats or say things like "2013's lineup is so interesting but nothing beats 2007. No, no, let us not speak of 1999!" There won't be any way to directly compare year-to-year anymore. (How will we even structure our prediction charts?) There's something quite beautiful about tradition in mythic institutions like Oscar. The chronologies will line up nevermore. Won't it also be more of a slap in the face for the snubs? "Sorry there were only 5 nominees this year but the rest of you who were 'in the hunt'. Turns out they only told you they loved you in the heat of the moment. They didn't."

Here's the part I found most intriguing* about the decision...

“In studying the data, what stood out was that Academy members had regularly shown a strong admiration for more than five movies,” said Davis. “A Best Picture nomination should be an indication of extraordinary merit. If there are only eight pictures that truly earn that honor in a given year, we shouldn’t feel an obligation to round out the number.”

If this system had been in effect from 2001 to 2008 (before the expansion to a slate of 10), there would have been years that yielded 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 nominees.

*And by intriguing I mean CRAZY-MAKING. Does this mean none of those years would have seen 10 nominees? Will ten films be a once a decade thing? [Tangent: This DOES mean that they keep all the voting data. How is it that this never leaks? Price Waterhouse must be guarded by Heimdall or suspended in a heavily guarded plastic prison like Magneto.]

You know what else this means: LISTS, Lots of lists! We'll look at 2001 through 2008 soon but we have to save some chi for a later post, can't blow it all at once on this announcement.  For now, let's just discuss this change and wonder which films would've been axed from the top ten by way of not getting enough #1 placements.

Here's my guesswork...

2010 - 8 nominees

I realize I'm stubborn about The Kids Are All Right... I enjoy being stubborn. But there was a time, if we're being honest with yourselves, that people thought it would be one of the five even if there were only five. My guess is that 127 Hours just barely slipped in and that Winter's Bone, despite being very well regarded was lacking in #1 votes. Who knows... But there did seem to be a broad range of support for many features last year so perhaps only The Boy And His Rock would've been eliminated.

2009 - 7 nominees

Though I was personally horrified at The Blind Side's inclusion in 2009 I do not think it was in 10th place. Oscar is so much more mainstream than the media likes to pretend and given the massive embrace of that movie from the general populace, there are few sound reasons to think AMPAS voters weren't also squeezing it, with formulaic tears streaming down their faces. District 9... well, I'm still surprised it got in given Oscar's history of shunning sci-fi. Perhaps most controversially, I'm guessing Pixar would've had to wait until Toy Story 3 to get the "only the second animated picture nominated for Best Picture" honor.

What'cha think of the rule change?

P.S. In other rule changes, the number of Animated Features nominated will be more flexible too. Previously it was 3 or 5. Now it'll be 2 to 5 depending on the number of films released that are eligible and number of votes those films received. The documentary category's eligibility will now be in sync with the calendar year like most categories.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (71)

There is NO doubt in my mind that 2002 was the 5 only year. 2008 was a 7 year...and yea yea.

I love the rule change, it quiets the haters and keeps what I like so much. They'll be no more snub talk./

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSam C.

It's definitely an interesting choice but I'm not sure if it's good interesting or bad interesting. Sure, It makes BP more unpredictable but it also means that some deserving films may not make it in because they're not "popular" enough (aka they don't fit into the academy's taste).

I would be more up for this if it happened in the acting/writing/directing/editing/technical categories, however, as those tend to have too many worthy nominees to whittle down to just five. Either way, we're in for a very interesting Oscar race.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDaniel Armour

My initial reaction: "And I was just hoping yesterday that Bridesmaids might get a nomination." No such luck...

I have mixed feelings about the rule change. Besides liking round numbers, I do think it made for a more genre-varied list. However, I was beginning to wonder with this year's lack of animated/blockbuster contenders, whether we'd fall back into the "only dramas" pattern in 2011.

But most notably, your "crazy-making" description is correct. That one paragraph will forever make us question the past 10 years of nominees. I actually think there would have only been six nominees in 2010 (TKS, TSN, Inception, Fighter, TG, BS) or maybe seven if TS3 got 5%. With all the build-up for TKS and TSN, I imagine there were two big fan blocks and a lot of teeny-tiny ones. For 2009, I'll say Up/The Blind Side get in and District 9/A Serious Man/An Education (my fave) would have been left off. But what do I know?

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterEvan

The 2 nominees minimum in the animated feature category is a bit low, what if that happens for the next few years then they will have to reconsider the category all together I reckon.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRami


Could you imagine if the ACTING categories were arranged this way too now?? WOW

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterWendy Kroy

I like the change. The best adjustment is bringing the Documentary eligibility period in line with the calendar year, to make it easier to know which films are contenders and to allow the whole ballot to reflect the same period in time.

I was a fan of the 10 when they announced it, and now I'm a fan of this. The number of BP nominees fluctuated several times in the 30s (from 5 to 8 to 10 to 12 and back to 10), and the asymmetry doesn't bother me. Why be against the idea that the nominees ought to pass a certain threshold of genuine ardor? I'll only dislike it if it polarizes the slate too much in terms of genre, and only favors the really divisive love/hate films like Black Swan and short-changes consensus builders that aren't always #1 vote-getters.

I think Winter's Bone probably had a bunch of #1 votes and think it would have survived the cut, more handily than Kids Are All Right. I'm mostly in sync with you on '09, except I think An Education would have been the first title to go.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterNick Davis

Daniel - yes to everything you said. (I never understood why, if we're going ten wide on best picture, they didn't similar expand the acting etc catagories.) I never saw going ten wide as being of particular value except to give some attention to smaller films that might need it.

''"threshold of passion"// - isn't that what we got with the Blind Side, with Driving Miss Daisy, etc? "Passion" means "strong emotion", not "intelligent choices" or "artistic excellence". If we're just looking at "passion", then that means the Oscar should go to - Glenn Beck.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJanice

I kind of hate the idea, mostly because I fear it will happen to the acting category. I think "snubs" or perceived snubs are a big part of the conversation. Most years we're able to whittle it down to 6 or 7 candidates and find out in the morning who makes it in. With this kind of change, everyone would.
I don't care as much about the picture nominees, so I'm less concerned. I guess we'll still get snubs and surprise nominees, but I don't really get the point.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMike

I 100% agree with you about The Blind Side. People seem to think this decision will prevent things like that. Pshaw!

The Kids Are Alright would not have made it in.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRJ

Oh ... and with this AND electronic voting this year, I'm afraid we're in for a clusterfuck.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRJ

I think that this is a brilliant idea. It's ignores this idea that there are only a set amount of "best" films in one year. There are weak and strong years in film, and to have the same amount of films regarded as "good" is unfair. I also think that it will encourage voters to vote for smaller films in an effort to reach that magic "5%".For example, if this rule was in play last year a voter might think The Social Network is the best film of the year, with Winters Bone closely following. This new system would likely make them vote Winters Bone as a first preference in an effort to get it in, over a "sure thing" like The Social Network.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJoFo

Yeah, I'm okay with this as long as the acting/writing nominees don't get touched. If the acting ones get touched, the nomination really isn't the thing anymore. Plus, it would be truly disheartening (and probably the reason they won't do it) if there were 8-10 Best Actor nominees each year and only five in the Best Actress category.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJohn T

The continued changing of the rules is annoying. It was a dumb idea to move to ten in the first place, and now they're trying to save face. Leave it as it is and live with the blunder of your mistake. Now some years might have 5, other might have 8, and on and on. The Grammys are going to see how dumb their changes are too in about 3 years.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRiley

This feels like the first step in going back to 5, maybe 6, permenantly. There only seem to be 2 or 3 "real" contenders for the actual win as is, and I can't imagine that more than 6 films would consistently have enough across the board support to secure a nom. But as so many have already said, what do I know?

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterVal

Surprised you think An Education would still have made it, that would have been my first guess for a snub.

I dunno how to feel about this. It makes predicting more fun, and in theory it's nice that films have to have a degree of passion behind them to get nominated. But OTOH it makes the whole thing feel more messy and random, and it's not like it'll stop bad films from getting nominated.... I'm pretty excited to see how it'll turn out next year.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRax

Oh, and anyone care to guess which was the year that would only have yielded 5 nominees regardless? 2002? 2005?

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRax

I'm going to have to go with Nick on this one. "Winter's Bone" still would have made it in, but "The Kids Are All Right" wouldn't have.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterLiz N.

Nat, if Academy members were so into The Blind Side, wouldn't it gotten nominations other than Picture and Actress? I think that if there were less than 10 nominees, none of them would have only 2 nominations total. If The Blind Side really had that passionate a following, wouldn't it have sneaked into Best Adapted Screenplay? Maybe Film Editing or Sound nomination? But it didn't, it just got a nomination for Best Actress (which it eventually won, but still). That's why I think films with just two nominations would be the first ones to go. Also, remember that John Hawkes was nominated, so that means Winters Bone also had a pretty good following. Since every branch votes for Best Picture nominations, these are things to consider.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRichter Scale

Richter Scale -- the nomination counts are always misleading. For example... before the 10 nominees there were OFTEN nonBP nominees getting more nods than a couple of the nominees. This change will remind people of that which has been forgotten (with reason) these past two years. I think the key film in understanding the "you never know" is FOUR WEDDINGS AND A FUNERAL which people just loved and it only got two nominations "best picture" and "song"

June 15, 2011 | Registered CommenterNATHANIEL R

Four Weddings and a Funeral was Picture and Screenplay, not song.

Anyhow there will still only be 5 real nominees, the Director's Choice. A film needs less than 300 #1 votes to be eligible for Best Picture, not a hard thing to muster up especially for the passion films.

The year of only 5 nominees could have been any year. You guys are thinking in terms of overall quality not #1 votes. I would think a 'bad' year would have more spread out taste and thus more films that hit 5% while a 'good' year would have No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood taking 50% of the #1 votes

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterA.J

If you're going to throw a monkey wrench like this into the nomination process, then let members nominate as many or as few films as they like. If you thought one film was Best Picture worthy, vote for one. If you thought 14 were worthy, vote for 14. I'd like to see how many films would make the magical 5% that way.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterwade

I agree with what has been said. Particularly with the fear that this might be extended to the acting categories. Please no!

Now. One thing I would have changed too. If documentaries can't compete for Best Picture, then I believe Animated Films should NOT be allowed to compete for Best Picture (such as Toy Story 3 or Up.) OR they should receive only ONE "picture" nomination, in that category where they received the largest percentage or number of votes. So if Up received more votes in the Best Picture category, it would NOT be nominated as Best Animated Film (actually smashing its chances of winning anything.) If this were the rule I am sure animation studios would agree that their pictures can compete only as Animated films.

This last rule I mentioned already applies to actors. If Kate Winslet had received sufficient votes to be nominated for Best Actress both for The Reader AND Reservation Road, then she would have received only one nomination, even if she actualy came in, say, first and third. I don't remember is the actor gets nominated for the performance with the most votes or with the first one to get the required number of votes to get nominated.

I mean. Would it have been fair if Up had turned out to win BOTH Best Picture and Best Animated Film?

PS: If they ever touch the acting categories it should be to create two new ones: Best Cameo Performance (male or female) for actors who are on screen for less than, let's say, 10 minutes. Judi Dench or Beatrice Straight would have been nominated in that category.

The second category (and they used to have special Oscars in the past) would be for Best Juvenile Performance (male or female). An age limit would have to be established.

Well, I know I got carried away and veered off subject. Sorry! :)

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMarcos

Documentaries can compete for Best Picture, Marcos.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRax


2000 Almost famous + Billy Elliot = 7 nominees
2001 Amelie + Black Hawk down = 7 nominees
2002 Road to Perdition = 6 Nominees
2003 City of god = 6 Nominees
2004 NONE = 5 Nominees
2005 Memoirs of a geisha + Walk the line + The constant gardener = 8 Nominees
2006 Pan's labyrinth = 6 Nominees
2007 The diving bell and the butterfly = 6 Nominees
2008 The dark knight + Wall-E = 7 Nominees
2009 An education + Up + Districit 9 = 8 Nominees
2010 The kids are all right + Black swan + Winter's bone + Toy Story 3 = 9 Nominees

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJohn

Oops! Thank you for clarifying that, Rax. Now that you mention it I remember that once there was speculation about one of Michael Moore's films getting nominated for Best Picture. Slipped my mind.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMarcos

My perception of snubs:

2010: I think the ten would be the same without a problem. 127 Hours has a support base (Especially for the BAFTA) and Winter's Bone's Hawkes and screenplay noms.

2009: I agree with Richard. Even without "The Blind Side" spot, Bullock had the Oscar in the bag, even she won the SAG that week. I think The Blind Side and DIstrict 9 would be out. An Education has the british support and got BP noms in BFCA and various critics groups. I have doubts with A Serious Man.

This rule would make really bizarre and interesting the predix. also there's was a debate about the inclusion of a six nominee in the acting categories. I think this rule must be adapted in certaine circunstances.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous

Though I am a proponent for the standard numbers of 5 and 10, I like the change. This will at least give the appearance that all of the films are well liked enough to win (whether they are is a different story). It was a very shrewd move by the Academy. Plus it removes pressure from them to feel the need to round out the top 10 in a weaker year.

I just hope this doesn't affect the new appreciation the Academy seems to have found for nominating films with pre-fall release dates or non-traditional genres.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterTerence

I can't imagine 2004 being the 5-nominee year, John. Not with Vera Drake and Eternal Sunshine in competition. On the other hand I don't believe Memoirs of a Geisha would have made the cut in 2005, neither Road to Perdition in 2002.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRax

I think this is interesting...I think it switches things up. I personally hated the 10 nominees...I think, like they were saying, it lessened the credibility of the Best Picture title.

Look at a movie like Juno: nominated for best picture in a year there were only 5 nominees. If it had been nominated in a year with 10 nominees, it would've been passed off as "oh, one of the 6th-10th place films." 10 nominees allowed too many films to have that feeling of being awesome because they're nominated for the top prize, when you know only two have the true possibility of actually winning.

Basically, what I'm saying, is with 10 just lost the meaning of Best Picture. Because it's like "oh you're nominated? well so were nine other movies" or "you were only nominated because there were 10 spots". I think this will give back some credibility.

Also, I don't think The Blind Side would've gotten in.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

I don't think people would have thought Juno was 6th-10th place considering many people correctly predicted it was in the Top 5. You can just as easily have a year like 2009 where the Top 5 seems completely obvious, even with 10 nominees.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMatt

I mean, I don't think this will fix anything, people will still vote for movies possibly not as worthy as others just because it's the popular thing to do, but I think this way has a little more credibility to it.

One thing I do hate about these rule changes is the fact that it creates so much "what if" about previous years in which the rule wasn't instated.

But this pretty much erases hope for a documentary getting a best picture nod...without acting support, or writing support, etc., it's hard. And unless something is HUGELY supported by the film industry in general, it's not likely it'll get a lot of number 1 votes.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

Other than the fluctuation of nominees per year the change will bring (I like the tidiness of five or ten myself), I can't say I have a problem with the new rule. It seems to take into account the need for the category to be elite and, thus, more discriminating while also acknowledging variations in quality films from year to year.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterTroy H.

2010: The Kids are All Right gets dropped, along with 127 Hours.
2009: District 9, Up, and An Education get dropped
2008: Doubt gets nominated.
2007: The Diving Bell and Butterfly gets nominated

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterArkaan

And at least before, there were 10 definite spots so it had the possibility of slipping into the 10th slot. I'm not like a huge documentary fan or anything, I just thought of that haha. It wasn't likely it was going to happen anyway.

Matt - I guess you're right...but when the top 5 seems obvious, it makes the other 5 seem silly.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterPhilip

I have the same problem as you, Nathaniel - I need symmetry, dammit! I'm willing to give this whole new system a shot, but I suspect it'll be greeted with boos and hisses when certain films get in and other beloved films miss.

Personally, I'm glad they changed the eligibility period for documentaries, because the old one never made sense to me. And I'm glad they've added the opportunity to expand Animated Feature, since that's always a Pixar-Dreamworks lovefest with some other (sometimes more deserving film) being added just because they have to. That's a category that needs more variety in it.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJason H.

Well this is intriguing. Now we got to predict what will be nominated and how many of them.

I think instead of “making twist” they should invent new categories. Like maybe Best Ensemble. Best Movie Quote. Best Poster. Best Young Performance. Best Newcomer or whatever.

They also should make Best Original Score more flexible, because I feel that sometimes there are many beautiful scores in a year.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMikhael

The only change they actually need is to kick out the members with lame taste.

The problem is that the contingent who has good taste splits votes between many movies, whereas the others usually rally behind only a couple or so. The latest example of this was just a few months ago.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJan

"I guess you're right...but when the top 5 seems obvious, it makes the other 5 seem silly." -- Philip

Which is why in a more-than-five/fewer-than-ten year the new rule makes some kind of sense. It give the perception (or illusion maybe) of both fairness and exclusivity.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterTroy H.

I think we should go back to 5 nominees, AFTER a 10 picture bakeoff! 10 nominees are announced on Oscar nomination morning, then all voters have 3 weeks to pick 5 pictures from the 10 nominees, and they're announced at the beginning of the Oscar ceremony. Could you imagine the swings in momentum that could occur in just 3 weeks of Oscar campaigning? It would be madness, delicious madness!

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterSawyer

This is a great change. It adds a level of excitement to and unpredictability to the nominations. We'll lose out on films like Winter's Bone being the little film that almost-could (I've accepted that it just isn't a very widely seen film), but we might also lose out on stuff like The Blind Side getting nominated at all.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterRobert G

Sam C -- first comment ;) --- nothing will ever quiet "snub" talk. No matter what the rules change to.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterNathanielR

major problem: studio pressure for block voting to get the 5%

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDean

It's kinda uneven because nomination films are not the same each year; but come to think of it it's actually make sense. I still like the idea that we have the top 10 or say 12, and then they have second vote (about a month later) to get the final 5.
Agree with Best Documentary. For Best Animation, I think from 2008 onwards, animation features have increasing rapidly in quantity and quality, so they could expand the field from 3-5 nomination each year.
Well, the change suggests that in most cases, best Director would be nominate for BP (except some rarely cases of only honoring the Director like MulHolland Dr in 2001 or Vera Drake in 2004)
In my opinion for each year the final nominees could be:
2000: Almost Famous + Billy Elliott - 7 nominees
2001: Mulholland Drive (for Best Director and Best Golden Globe nods) + Amelie + Black Hawk Down - 8 nominees
2002: Far From Heaven, Talk to Her (not sure, but why not, it has Best Director and Screenplay nod) - 7 nominees
2003: Cold Mountain (7 nominations without BP), City of God - 7 nominees
2004: Eternal Sunshine of Spotless Mind (Screenplay nods), Hotel Rwanda, Vera Drake - 8 nominees
2005: Walk the Line - 6 nominees
2006: Pan's Labyrinth, Dreamgirls (anyway it had the most Oscar nominations of that year) - 7 nominees
2007: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Sweeney Todd, Into the Wild - 8 nominees
2008: Wall-E, The Dark Knight, The Wrestler, Doubt (I'm not sure here) - 9 nominees
2009: dropped The Blind Side (only got 2 nominations), District 9 (Sci-fi); A Serious Man (too independent) - 7 nominees
2010: dropped Winter's Bone (too indie) - 9 nominees (I thought that 127 Hours featured strong direction and The Kids Are All Right was the only 1 light-heart film on the list; so they could stand.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered Commentertombeet

They can't really fix the main problem, which is when their nominations don't line up with our personal preferences.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterMike P

Hmm, I don't think The Blind Slide would have gotten 5% of #1 votes; in fact, I doubt that it got very many at all. You really believe people put it in their *first* slot?

At this point, I like the idea. It puts more prestige back into being a "Best Picture nominee."

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterDanielle

I don't know, y'all. I like this change in theory, but the more I think about it, the less I like it. Maybe it has to do with the symmetry thing. Or maybe it has to do with not trusting the Academy's taste. I don't know. I appreciated the move to 10, even as it made Oscar prognosticating considerably easier and half the nominees didn't really matter anyway - everyone broke down the ten into upper and lower tiers based on Directing and Editing noms. But this? It makes sense, but it just feels disingenuous somehow. I can't quite put my finger on it, but there it is.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered Commenterdenny

The Academy, always keeping things interesting...with their rule changes. Now if only they could adopt some of the Film Bitch Awards categories, especially "Adapted Song/Score".

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJoel

Forget about ever getting a foreign language film, doc, animated (unless it makes gazillions of dollars), or a "District 9"-type nomination in BP ever again. Boooooooo.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterQuez

I'm with Nathaniel. This is only marginally better than The Ten. They need to go back to five.

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterJon

MY lineup:

2000: 7 nominees - Billy Elliot + Almost Famous
2001: 8 nominees - Amelie + Black Hawk Down + Mulholland Dr.
2002: 6 nominees - Talk to Her
2003: 8 nominees - City of God + Cold Mountain + In America
2004: 8 nominees - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind + Hotel Rwanda + Vera Drake
2005: 7 nominees - The Constant Gardener + Walk the Line
2006: 7 nominees - Pan's Labyrinth + United 93
2007: 9 nominees - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly + Into the Wild + Sweeney Todd + The Bourne Ultimatum (I Know it sounds crazy, but won three Oscars and British spot)
2008: 8 nominees - The Dark Knight + Doubt + Wall-E
2009: 8 nominees - Drop Out The Blind Side and A Serious Man
2010: 9 nominees - Drop Out Winter's Bone

June 15, 2011 | Unregistered CommenterAnonymous
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.