Oscars to Double Best-Picture Nominations for 2009

I don’t know, bringing in more movies to the top pick doesn’t mean more viewer…if anything it’ll just create more debate/talk about how out of touch the Oscars are for having an expanded choice and still pick a movie that most people didn’t see after the telecast.

I have a hard time believing this is anything more than a marketing ploy by the AMPAS on behalf of the motion picture industry to get more people into movie theaters in January and February, typically the the time year when most ‘must-see’ movies are nowhere near the release schedule. I also question whether there will be 10 movies worthy of nomination at the end of this year, when usually there are four “I could see this being a Best Picture” movies and always one “How did that get nominated” selection.

I’m not quite seeing the net benefit of this either. It has to be in the hopes of higher viewership.
However, your partisan idea is unlikely – the ratings are pretty directly proportional to the total box office of the movies nominated. It doesn’t matter if there are 5 Milks or 10, the viewers will pale in comparison to a year when there’s a Return of The King nominated. Besides, this partisan idea ignores that it is usually the same partisans who will be there year in and year out – in how many years are the civil rights film, the anti-war film, the period drama, etc. not represented?
-
So my guess is that they are trying to backhandedly introduce the box office hits that critics complain they are not including (and thus, in their opinion, why “middle America” no longer cares about the award or the show).
So I see the average year, instead of including, on recent average, about 4.5 “serious” film slots, now including 5 serious film slots (that have any real chance of winning), 2 runner-up serious films that no chance of winning, a near-permanent Woody Allen slot, and then 2 “popular” film slots. Those last two slots go towards your “higher quality” popular films that should have no chance of winning – and yes, a Pixar movie will usually be one, along with things like Iron Man, The Dark Knight, etc.
-
Due to the strike damaged state of 2009 cinema, I am struggling to come up with what would qualify for this year. Clearly Up takes one, but beyond that, I’m at a loss. Perhaps Harry Potter? That should throw the Academy into a tizzy.

Does this mean foreign language films will have a chance to compete for Best Picture? If that was the case I would have less of a problem with it. Because last year was a pretty weak year for movies (although the 2008 summer movie season was better than expected).
—
In 2007, there probably were 10 or so movies that could have been nominated. But I don’t see another rich crop like that coming out anytime soon. Especially where major studios are concernced (sans Pixar).
—
You can see how desparately they try to marked straight character dramas into “action/suspense” movies with the trailers they put together. Just go and watch the trailers for The Road and Shutter Island and you’ll see what I am talking about. True, both have suspenseful elements but the advertising is misleading.

Marketing, marketing, marketing. When a movie is nominated for Best Picture, ticket sales increase and DVD sales skyrocket. Also, the academy members want to go to twice as many “vote-for-us” soirees during February and March.

The article points out that there used to be 10 nominations back in the ’30s and early ’40s. The last year they did it was the year Casablanca won. But “oneside…” is right about the Box Office boost that Best Picture Nominees get. Although, I don’t think it helps as must as it used to. People don’t want to spend 10 or more dollars on a movie where there aren’t any explosions. Even if they prefer that drama over action. It’s just cheaper to rent on DVD a couple months later.

“Does this mean foreign language films will have a chance to compete for Best Picture?”
~
God, that’d be great! Though I was pleased the last two years (Slumdog and No Country for Old Men), let’s not forget this is the same group of suits that recognized Crash and Titanic! So, whether 5 or 10 films, I still think the right marketing campaign can sway their better judgment.
~
Most of the best cinema over the last decade or so was made outside of America: The Lives of Others, The Sea Inside, the Barbarian Invasions, Talk to Her, In the Mood for Love, the list goes on and on.
~
If they don’t open it up to foreign nominees (i.e. the only way to reach 10 worthy candidates), why not go straight A-Idol with it, showing a number of films on the telly/online, without commercials, and people can vote on them. Or do it like the all-star balloting, giving movie goers cards that they fill out and submit after viewing. What the hell, throw in the acting categories too.
~
The idea that the academy recognizes, let alone rewards the best of anything is ludicrous. If their penchant is just to pick the most popular or sentimental choices, sh!t, let the people speak.

From an aesthetic standpoint, doubling the number of Best Picture nominees makes the honor of being nominated half as valuable — you can’t claim to be a better marksman just because someone makes the bullseye bigger. But aesthetics are clearly not the point here. This is nothing more than an effort to dumb down the Oscars (which is ironic, because the Oscars were already pretty dumb) as a way of encouraging more people to pay attention to them; and why should studios care, when twice as many will now be able to put “Nominated for Best Picture” on the DVD box?

I agree with many of these points, but my concern is about how long the Oscars show will now be–don’t they do a little presentation with a clip and synopsis of each BP nominee? Will the show run 4-5 hours now?

If ten films can compete for the title of “best picture” then how special is it really? It feels less competitive because in a general year there is only about ten movies that should be and are worthy to be considered.