Back to Five? Back to Reality. (On the Best Picture Problem)
Wednesday, March 4, 2015 at 2:13PM 
Back from a fantasy, yes...
By now you have read the rumor that the Academy is considering going back to only five Best Picture nominees per year. I've been amused by the headlines about this as they're extremely telling before you even get to the editorials. Consider Awards Daily's jaded / defeated "As They've Always Wanted" (Sasha likes the expanded field) or In Contention's even angrier / more insulting "Wants to Go Backward" (Gregory also likes the expanded field). Oscar bloggers have, for the most part, enjoyed the expansion because it gave us more to write about.
I never personally liked it. Oh sure it was fun the first couple of years in the way sudden upheavals in any tradition can feel thrilling in either an adventure film or horror film way. It also prompted fun guessing games about what might have been nominated in years past. But as a lover of Oscar history who enjoys comparing all eras too each other in out-of-time conversation, it was ultra-disruptive. How to compare years with 5 versus years with 8 versus 9 versus 10? Pick a number and stick with it. I understand that people have enjoyed the diversity of genres that the expanded field brought us but that only worked the first two years. [Lots more...]
After that the publicists / studios acclimated to the new system and went back to putting their efforts and money into pushing the films they thought of as "Oscar Bait." And now the field of 10, or 9 or 8 looks pretty much exactly like the fields of 5 from days of yore.
2011 gets my vote for most difficult year to figure what it would have been like under old system
• 2009 Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Precious, Up in the Air (if only five)
plus: A Serious Man, An Education, District 9, The Blind Side, Up
• 2010 Black Swan, The Fighter, Inception, The King's Speech, The Social Network (if only five?)
plus: 127 Hours, The Kids Are All Right, Toy Story 3, True Grit, Winter's Bone
• 2011 The Artist, The Descendants, The Help, Hugo, Midnight in Paris (if only five? really tough year to call)
plus: Extremely Loud, The Tree of Life, Moneyball, War Horse
• 2012 Argo, Les Miz, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook (if only five? another tough year to say)
plus: Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Zero Dark Thirty
• 2013 American Hustle, 12 Years a Slave, Dallas Buyers Club, Gravity, Wolf of Wall Street (if only 5? but maybe not. Capt Phillips had DGA and Philomena & Nebraska acting support)
plus: Captain Phillips, Philomena, Her, Nebraska
• 2014 American Sniper, Birdman, Boyhood, Grand Budapest Hotel, The Imitation Game (if only 5? but Whiplash might have surprised knocking one of these out)
plus: Selma, Theory of Everything, Whiplash
It's a very tough perception problem that I'm not sure anyone fully knows how to address, least of all Oscar bloggers who consistently if perhaps unintentionally reinforce 'looks good on paper' notions all year long which only adds to the problem. I'm not blameless either though I try to use my own wishful thinking to promote open minded reception of films that don't seem typical but are nonetheless deserving of awards attention. Like Pride, The Babadook, Captain America Winter Soldier or Under the Skin this past year to name a few examples.
I understand the passion behind the "this is terrible" arguments but frankly some of the assumptions are unsupported by Oscar history. Gregory contends that this will only further acerbate their diversity problem but that's not true. The only field that is expanded is Best Picture. The acting races have remained the same and there were years as far back as the 70s and 80s with far more diversity than we saw this past year, ethnically speaking. I buy Mark Harris's argument a few years back that statistically the wider Best Picture field has actually resulted in LESS films receiving nominations overall. Now, if you're not fighting for a Best Picture slot you're just basically not in the race. Less screeners seem to be being watched.
I dont know what the solution is but one thing that definitely needs to be addressed is how few pictures the voting members are actually seeing. It's alarming time and again at awards-courting events to speak to members who haven't seen buzzy films. Some people in the past have wondered why select critics haven't been invited to join the Academy (there are critics within the Tony voting ranks for example) but I'd argue that's not a good solution either since critics have shown in their annual awards that they don't have much more imagination than Oscar voters in terms of what is "Oscar Worthy".
What's more we've already seen the damage in stability that can be done when they race for correctives. If the expansion changed because of The Dark Knight (2008 - I'm far more upset about WALL•E missing that year) why change the whole system again just because Selma had some campaign problems in December/January. Shouldn't an 87 year old institution be less excitable when things go wrong in one particular season?
Perhaps it's time for a smaller faction -- I know this sounds counterintuitive -- within AMPAS to serve as a nominating committee much the way same way the Executive Committee of the Foreign Language Film category has vastly improved that field each year with "saves" of high quality films that didnt' receive enough votes in the first round. Or even just an Executive Committee who could do press releases and email blasts and coordinated events quarterly -- anything to expand the "what you should watch" and get members watching contenders all year round.
And before anyone says it, hear this: I don't buy the argument that Academy members don't have time to watch their screeners because they're working. If people -- and Academy voters are just people like you and I with busy lives and jobs -- have time to binge watch 13 hours of their favorite Netflix series they have time to watch a 2 hour more here and there. If you watch movies all year round, even as few as one a week, the screener holiday crunch wouldn't be so overwhelming. Chances are you'd already have key favorites that you planned on voting for before the publicists even got to you.
Better viewing habits may be the only way to expand the aesthetic palette and increase diversity of genre and actors considered each year.
Reader Comments (79)
I was fine with the expanded list. I liked that the type of films that would usually be on the outside looking in were at least recognized.
I'd like for it to go back to 5. Never liked Best Picture being a Top 10 of some sort.
"And before anyone says it, hear this: I don't buy the argument that Academy members don't have time to watch their screeners because they're working. If people -- and Academy voters are just people like you and I with busy lives and jobs -- have time to binge watch 13 hours of their favorite Netflix series they have time to watch a 2 hour more here and there."
THIS! A blogger friend recently claimed on twitter that we can't expect someone like Spielberg to have time to see a few must-see films and I thought that was utter bullshit. There are many people who have even more time-consuming jobs than directors and they find time to watch 1 or 2 buzzy films for the year.
I also remember my dad asking me about the "Selma" drama in terms of voters not seeing it and he agreed that it was illogical that they wouldn't make sure they seek out the big films at least.
I like it being 5 only. It seperates the top tier films from the also-rans. I think a list of up to 10 devalues the category to a certain extent, especially when you see what's been nominated for best picture during the last few years. "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close". Anyone?
You know, this is all just so stupidly reactionary on the part of the Academy, and betrays how insecure they are about the show's - and the industry's - place in the culture right now. Though I'm a fan of the expanded field (I think they should've just left it at 10 nominees a year), their reason for expanding it - low ratings for the 2009 telecast - is just as stupid as their reason - low ratings - for considering toggling it back. Oscar ratings directly correlate to the box office popularity of the films nominated. In 2009 and 2015, the nominees were among the least popular from a box office perspective, American Sniper aside, in recent history. In 2010, 11 and 13, they were among the most popular, and the ratings reflected that. A secure institution would accept that ratings will fluctuate from year to year relative to the popularity of the movies nominated. They can't have their cake and eat it too - nominate niche movies and expect to retain broad cultural relevance. Some years they do a good job of mixing mainstream and art house selections. Sometimes the balance is off one way or the other. The aggregate history of the institution is what matters, not the year to year variance, and it's sad to see them twist in the wind like this.
"Or even just an Executive Committee who could do press releases and email blasts and coordinated events quarterly -- anything to expand the "what you should watch" and get members watching contenders all year round."
I think AMPAS would be ripped apart by the studios if they did this. Not that smaller films don't deserve this type of thing. Maybe they should just do a better job dismantling the damage people like Harvey Weinstein inflicts upon AMPAS voters. Over-campaigning is the problem here; smaller films and their distributors can't do what Weinstein can. Get rid of everything and just have a theatrical release and screeners sent out to voters.
I'm not sure how a special committee could work here, and I think there would be a lot of grumbling about this.
Also, based on your predictions of the nominees in the past few years seemingly out of the top five (which I mostly agree with), I think the expanded field is a fantastic idea. I like a world where District 9 , Up, The Kids Are All Right, Toy Story 3, Winter's Bone, Tree of Life, Amour, Zero Dark Thirty, Her and Selma can be best picture nominees. I don't see why it matters if there are 6 nominees one year, 8 the next, and 10 the year after that.
I wish AMPAS cared more about the people who actually WANT to watch the Oscars and less about courting some audience who, at the end of the day, probably don't really care. Yes, the Oscars are a show, but they are first and foremost a tradition of honoring excellent work. It's disheartening to see the board of governors care more about the telecast and financial profits.
"I was fine with the expanded list. I liked that the type of films that would usually be on the outside looking in were at least recognized."
Me too Raul. In my opinion some of the films that probably would not make the top 5 are better than the movies that would.
I'm pretty sure True Grit was in the top 5 in 2010. 10 nominations, box office hit, and its buzz peaked at just the right moment. I think it would have taken Inception's spot. Or maybe even Black Swan, since that movie kind of underperformed on nominations morning (remember people were predicting it would get 7-8 nominations?).
To the larger point, though, I've never been a fan of the expanded field. While I appreciate that movies like A Serious Man, Up, and Her are Best Picture nominees, I can't help but always feel like that should be noted with an asterisk reading "*under the revised rules."
10 wide guaranteed I had a film or two to root for each year. The variable field does not guarantee it. The 5 wide field disqualified it.
I agree with your "these would be the five" guesses. That's why I like the wider field. I can look at the 10 wide years and feel great that films I really loved like District 9, Up, and Winter's Bone are forever engraved as Best Picture nominees. Those three in particular would never have broken through otherwise.
2012 is the year that really cements my support of a wider field. I didn't like any of the likely nominees. I loved all the clear also rans. Amour? Stunning. Beasts of the Southern Wild? Watch it a few times a year still. Django Unchained? Love it. Zero Dark Thirty? Ok, not so much with that one, but I prefer it to Lincoln and Silver Linings Playbook, for sure.
Just go 10 wide. Honor the memory of the first few years and stick to that. We have more films released each year than ever before. Let's recognize more of them.
And a quality committee like the Foreign Language race would be great, too. Like, preliminary ballot to narrow the field to X + saved films, then the real vote.
It should either be 5 or 10, but I'd prefer 5. As much as I love the fact that things like her, District 9, and Beasts of the Southern Wild were Best Picture nominees, the fete does seem a bit diluted when the numbers (and more dubious nominees) are taken into consideration. I think one of the main problems is that every year, regardless of the total number of nominees, only 2 or 3 films end up having a legitimate chance of actually winning Best Picture. With 5 you could create the illusion of a genuine race (think 2006), but that's never gonna be the case with the expanded field. Critics falling into their bizarre yearly group think (100s of them all picking the same winners!?) and the endless march of awards seasons does the Academy no further favors.
I think in the end, they should just give up on this insane quest with trying to appeal to the "mainstream". At this point anyone can recognize what an Oscar movie is. Sometimes you get a Lincoln that aligns to what Oscar and audiences can both widely embrace, or you get a line up like this year (with the exception of American Sniper), where those Oscar movies didn't quite breakthrough with audiences. Sometimes you get really lucky and James Cameron releases something. Those glory days of 50 million plus viewers appear to be gone unless they start to nominate the Harry Potters and critic-friendly Marvel movies that are released. They didn't take the bait when the chance was there, so they might as well go back to how it used to be. We'll complain regardless.
THE FUTURIST! is all 3rd Person singular about only having 5 nominees. It seems more illustrious.
Robert G - "We have more films released each year than ever before. Let's recognize more of them."
Exactly. With so many hundreds of films released each year, the expanded field seems fine to me. 5 will always be nominated, and if up to 5 more get enough votes, they're in, too.
Yes, this might make comparing years harder (which, with all due respect, seems to be a problem only for Oscar-loving film bloggers, which is a very small niche to have this problem), but previous Oscar posts here and elsewhere have lamented the Oscars not celebrating the year in film and instead favoring random tributes to decades-old films. The 5+ field does exactly this - taking stock of the year in film and being flexible enough to realize that some years produce 8 worthy films, some 9, some 10, etc.
As far as voters not having enough time, just watch one movie a week for a year. Seriously, that's it. If they did that, they'd have seen probably way more at the end of that year than they normally do now.
And I LOVE the idea of banning campaigns at all besides theatrical showings and screeners. No special screenings, no Q&A's, no print ads, no billboards, nothing. That would even the playing field. And hey, with less time devoted to attending all these events, voters would have more time to actually watch movies!
UGH. I can't with the Academy's back-and-forth on this. If they were really going to abandon the expanded field, they should have done it after the first year, when it was clear that Avatar and Inglorious Basterds would have been heavy BP hitters without the expanded field. There will never be a year with a BP lineup that pleases everyone, even with one massive hit in the race (as this year proved).
Despite the fact that (thank you, Mark Harris, for confirming what I only suspected) less films get nominated each year under the expanded field, I'm a fan. Yes, nomination morning isn't quite as suspenseful/fun as it was with the field of five, but in general the expanded field has been a better representation of the film year. 2010-2012 are perfect examples of this. Compare those expanded fields to any likely possible combination of five, and it's a better list.
But really, stop waffling, Academy. Don't worry yourself about ratings, because then next year will come around and a massive giant hit will be right in the thick of things again and you will see ratings naturally climb because of it. What you should worry about is making sure that good films get seen. That is your purpose, after all.
I see that it's divisive but when I think to going back to five, I couldn't help to remember that particular year when The Reader and Frost/Nixon were in and The Dark Knight was out!
What I wish they would go back to is a later calendar date, where the Oscars were at the end of March. Then movie goers and people who like to watch the Oscars have seen most of the movies. Voters even have time to think about their votes.
The scrambling to be the first awards, to hurry up and give awards, plays into herd mentality. So what if the Oscars were the last group to give awards? They're the awards that are the most valued and that everybody wants.
If Oscar present isn't analogous to Oscar past, then what's the point? I like five nominees.
Look at Selma, for example. Snubbing that movie in every category but Best Song spoke louder than its token Best Picture nomination. If the Academy doesn't love or recognize a movie, let them be accountable for it.
I like the expanded field. But I do agree they need to change the way the nominees are chosen. I like the SAG method of a randomly selected nomination committee to narrow the field down. I also think they need a deadline date for screeners to be sent (which would have solved the Selma problem full stop). All screeners for films hoping to be nominated need to be sent to the academy to then be sent on to the nominating committee en masse, If your screener is late, tough shit. I think its called organization and planning.
I wonder how much pressure the network is giving AMPAS to bring in the ratings?
Henry -- i am absolutely for those deadlines. No mailings past ___ date. and well in advance too. I think it would seriously pleasantly affect release schedules.
Adri -- the problem with holding the Oscars later without other rule changes is that you just get even worse with "qualifying" releases tha tdont open til April the next year.
There's something to be said about inviting critics to be in the Academy. I don't think that's the solution; but the voting body needs to be diversified beyond the old, white Hollywood men who are happy to vote for their buddies and listen to whatever Harvey and Scott Rudin tell them. Given the makeup of the Academy now, it doesn't matter if there are 5 or 10 Best Picture nominations -- you're still going to get the same result. Like all problems in life, you have to start by looking within yourself.
5 or 10 and stick with it-none of this waffling numbers (making 2014 look like a lesser honor because it only got eight when 2012/13 got nine). I prefer nine though, as it makes it more of an honor and it allows for more diversity in the tech categories/acting categories.
I'm a great believer in the ten-nominee field - and I lament how the diversity of its pilot period has been lost in the subsequent years of eight or nine films. I just think the voting process is head-scratching at best and polarising at worse - I mean will we ever get another animated film with the 5% rule? And will Oscar buffs be complaining when there are only five nominees again - and "The Theory of Everything" and "The Imitation Game" are still getting in? I'd also imagine an enormous discrepancy between Picture and Director going forward - it becomes problematic when you think of what five films would have gotten in in the last few years (surely "Her", "Argo", "Whiplash", "Dallas Buyers", "Les Miserables" et al, weren't part of the "Faux Five", as I think Sasha Stone once had films without a Directing nod?). As Nathaniel said, I'd like to see an investigation into the voting/screening issues that cost "Selma" its nod (or better still, a vote to defer next year's ceremony into the middle of March to allow upsets, or at least autonomous voting decisions, to cook up)...
Andy - how does inviting critics solve their diversity problem? Sure, there obviously are some critics who aren't straight white men, but aren't most of them? Wouldn't that end up not changing the Academy's demographics really at all?
Plus, like Nat pointed out, it's not as if the critics groups have been so great at independent thinking.
DJDeeJay: The big problem is that they're straight white OLD men and inviting a primarily YOUNG sect of daring critics might fix things slightly.
It seems that lately there's been a disconnect between what the Academy watches and what the public watches, but also between what the Academy watches and what cinephiles watch. As a result, no one has been that excited about the Oscars except for those who receive nominations.
I don't know anyone who claims that The Imitation Game or The Theory of Everything are great films, and yet they stole many nominations from films that appeal to the mass public like Interstellar and The Lego Movie, as well as films that appeal to cinephiles like Gone Girl and A Most Violent Year.
It's just hard to take the Academy seriously when this happens.
I'm all for honoring art-house and independent films like Winter's Bone or Amour, but they're not even doing that anymore. They're just going after conventional Oscar-bait.
Right now, what the Academy needs more than anything else is a pulse.
The voting process to get to the expanded field has always confused me, but I do like the longer list and love that, for every "Blind Side," we might get an "Amour." The only good thing about going back to 5 is the re-emergence of the Lone Director (which we somehow got this year anyway). That's always my favorite surprise on nomination morning.
Keep the expansion. How can you say that Beasts of the Southern Wild, Her, The Tree of Life, Whiplash, Amour, Midnight in Paris, District 9, and Winter's Bone are just "more of the usual Oscar bait." Nothing about that statement is true whatsoever.
I knew this might happen eventually. I can't remember if I was excited for the expanded field, but must admit some of the Academy's most delightful and daring choices (Tree of Life and An Education were my favorites in their years; Beasts of the Southern Wild is one of the best I can remember) came from the list. So did stinkers like Extremely Loud and The Blind Side - sorry Sandra! It was a wonderful look inside, and I'll still be asking questions about it for years. Would Inception get in before True Grit in 2010? Are we 100% sure those interesting Director nods in 2012 wouldn't go at least 4/5 with Picture? What other lone Director nods in the past wouldn't have landed a BP nomination in an expanded field? It's been interesting.
Part of me thinks the more, the merrier. Part of me thinks five will mean more... but I already know the first five will make me wonder if my favorite pick landed at #6. Ah well. It's been fun, and it was nice to see the Academy make some great choices alongside a few yawns.
*Meant to say Beasts was one of the best SURPRISES, though the big surprise was the Director nod
Watching films all year means you'll be watching superheroes and cartoons all year. Only about five real movies are released between February and October. I live in Houston, so half of the Oscar-nominated movies aren't even released here until January. We are just a podunk little town of four million people, after all.
vladdy - but most of the voters are in LA and NY. and you don't only have to watch films in theaters. by the summer, plenty of the year's earlier movies are available on VOD or DVD so if they missed Under the Skin in the spring they could still watch it in August. and hey, it might not be bad to have the voters watch some superhero movies if they're not already. I'm no superhero fan by any means (I didn't even see Guardians of the Galaxy) but it wouldn't hurt for them to be aware of what the country is watching.
"Keep the expansion. How can you say that Beasts of the Southern Wild, Her, The Tree of Life, Whiplash, Amour, Midnight in Paris, District 9, and Winter's Bone are just "more of the usual Oscar bait." Nothing about that statement is true whatsoever."
Your right, they aren't the usual oscar bait and that's why I also think they should keep the expansion. Going back to five nominees is not going to solve the ratings problem. I can't see people getting more excited for the Oscars because less movies are nominated.
We need to go back to five. There never was a compelling reason to change the rule anyway. The fact that The Dark Knight didn't get in for Best Picture was not because the field was too narrow, but that again, AMPAS went for flagrant Oscar bait (The Reader) over the superior film, which happened to be a mass entertainment with pulp origins. But previously The Fugitive, just such a picture, was up for the top prize. So the voters just have to be more aware of what they're voting on. That's the problem and always will be.
And the five-wide field guarantees prestige. Ten does not.
Wes -- i didn't claim that all the things nominated were "the usual Oscar bait" I said within a few years they acclimated and the publicists and studios figured out how to return to what they usually do. 2011 and 2012 and 2013 and 2014's best picture lineups are not appreciably different in any way than years when there were only 4 nominees. (except maybe Beasts of the Southern Wild) All of the films beyond the first two years were "prestige" projects in one typical way or another and would have been considered for Oscars anyway and had nominations in the old system.
It was only from 2009-2010 when people were getting the rug pulled out and readjusting that things went a little haywire and we had some fun with sci-fi, foreign films, animated films, and whatnot
Oh, forgot to mention this - do we think Director and Picture will match more often if we go back to five? Obviously they matched this year, but it seemed like the tension between those two was much more exciting with an expanded field, though I'm not sure why.
For every "The Blind Side" or "Extremely Close..." that gets in, there is a "Winter's Bone," "Amour," "Her," "Beasts of the Southern Wild," "Toy Story 3," and so on. I think the best picture field each year is more prestigious when those films are recognized than it is if we had, for example, a 2012 set of nominees made up of Argo, Les Miz, Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook.
Would've liked to see how this site's readers would do if put to a vote. Nat, maybe do a poll?
I'm a proponent of the expanded field though I wish they kept it at 10.
I'm coming late to this debate but I can't believe how silly the Academy is being. I have really enjoyed the expanded field, and hope the don't go back to five.
I think the problems with the membership goes deeper than the BP Five vs. BP Expanded debate.
Scott Feinberg did a podcast with an Academy member who used to do " Reel Geezers " on Youtube. He mentioned that during the late 60's, Academy president Gregory Peck brought in some tough changes to shake up the membership because they were nominating Dr. doolittle and other old fashioned choices for BP. He retired Academy members who hadn't had an industry credit for 30 years or so. The Academy began choosing much better nominations from 1969 onwards because of these changes.
By all means tighten up the screening and qualifying rules, but the academy membership needs to be over hauled, use the precedent set by Peck to modernize the current out of touch members.
If you're going to blow up the system, you might as well go all out, no? They could do it in a few ways.
I could see a primary and general election, why not? They narrow down the list to 30 contenders in the primary, and then they vote again to pick their top five from that list?
Or how about seasonal voting? Every three months they get to vote for five films to join the bakeoff? I sort of like this because it would blow up the release schedule (i.e. everything in December), and you'd probably get quirky popular choices thrown in like Guardian of the Galaxy. What else are you going to nominate for the June vote?
Or they could do it like the Grammys where there is a "blue ribbon panel." I think they take the list of 20 albums that everyone has voted into the top and pick the top 5. Though I think a more fair way to do it might be to have the general academy nominate 5 to 7 titles, and then have the "experts" vote in 3 to 5 more titles?
I mean the voting right now is utterly confusing to everyone anyway, so why not create a system that gives you what you want? Heck, if they want the top boxoffice titles, why not reserve three spots in best picture for the top three boxoffice winners. Oh man, that would come up with some horrifying nominees.
I didn't mean to say they should invite critics. I just meant they should diversify the voting members.
LadyEdith, I personally always listen to Gregory Peck.
I would totally support the overhauling of membership. Whenever I read how these anonymous members voted, my first thought is that the Academy needs to be more selective. Who are these morons?
"After that the publicists / studios acclimated to the new system and went back to putting their efforts and money into pushing the films they thought of as "Oscar Bait." And now the field of 10, or 9 or 8 looks pretty much exactly like the fields of 5 from days of yore..."
This is a surprising statement from the man who was excited about this year's two frontrunners being atypical winners. Also, last year's winner was an interesting case (a typical Oscar-bait subject presented in a fascinatingly atypical way)...
"• 2009 Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Precious, Up in the Air (if only five)
plus: A Serious Man, An Education, District 9, The Blind Side, Up"
Sure The Hurt Locker was one of the favorites that year and ended up winning the big prize, but I am sure it would fail to get a best film nomination in a 5 only scenario. Because the bloggers/guilds mindset would be something like "too small, too early, to gritty and too unOscary to get in the 5 slot. The Academy will not properly recognize it and will look for more Oscar friendly movies" and doing that it would rule The Hurt Locker out of the competition...
To be honest, I think the big wigs like Spielberg and Streep go out of their way to watch a shit ton of movies.
It's the middle brow -- those who think they "work too much" and are "always busy" that they can't take time off their busy schedules. When in fact, those who are busier and work more make time.
And keep the expanded field. For every Blind Side or Extremely Loud, Incredibly Close we get a District 9, Toy Story 3, Winter's Bone...
There are 3 main problems with the Oscars right now, and the Academy could address 2 of these.
1. People can't get excited about films they haven't had a chance to see. At my office people were quite willing to believe that Julianne Moore was a worthwhile nominee, but they hadn't had any chance to see her film before the nominations were announced. That just makes it all seem like a joke.
The final release date for the year should be Dec.1 - period.
2. The membership has grown top heavy with people who haven't made a film for years.
Cull the membership; Gregory Peck did it in the 60's - address the core of the problem.
3. Awards Saturation: This isn't something that can be changed by the Academy. But I really hate the number of other awards groups between the Golden Globes and the Oscars.
Guild awards I can understand, but they don't need a big ceremony. And the (less than Independent) Independant Spirit Awards on the night before is just crazy, and mean spirited.
It makes it a death march of award shows for the nominees.
But the Academy could address the first 2 problems and that would improve things for itself and us.
The Best Picture "problem" is AMPAS thinking it needs to be more populist.
Admitedly, I was strongly opposed to the idea of adding more Best Picture nominees. The move felt unnecessary and desperate. Now, I really like the idea as it brings attention to great, interesting films like "Selma", "Whiplash" and the eventual winner, "Birdman" that could really use that boost to get people to check out these films.
There's probably an accountant laughing somewhere and saying if there were 10 - The Dark Knight wouldn't have been nominated anyway. They don't like comic book movies. Doubt, Wall-E, The Wrestler, Frozen River, Revolutionary Road - THEY were snubbed. ; )
There's probably an accountant laughing somewhere and saying if there were 10 - The Dark Knight wouldn't have been nominated anyway. They don't like comic book movies. Doubt, Wall-E, The Wrestler, Frozen River, Revolutionary Road - THEY were snubbed. ; )