Best Pics back to 5 nominees?

[tazber]

Posted: 3/4/15 at 11:48am

Does anyone really care anymore?


Link

[CarlosAlberto]

Posted: 3/4/15 at 12:27pm

I sure as hell don't.

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/4/15 at 1:58pm

I think they should turn it into a miniseries. If they can run The Slap for eight weeks, then they can run the Oscars for at least five.

[tazber]

Posted: 3/4/15 at 2:33pm

The Oscar telecast already is a mini-series.

[Jay Lerner-Z]

Posted: 3/4/15 at 6:00pm

I'd like if they went back to five. Every year, I'm curious as to what the five "real" nominees are - since they went to ten, it definitely lost some prestige (not the eventual winner, but the nomination).

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/4/15 at 6:57pm

It's pointless nominating 5-10 when 80% of them have no chance of winning. By the time of the PGA and Director's Guild, SAG, and Bafta, we know already which 5 are the strongest contenders. When there's only 5 nominees, it is possible for 3 (or 4) to be contenders, if 2 (or 3) of them split the vote. Having more than 5, just makes the extra nominees dead weight.

I'm so sick of this "Participation ribbons for everyone!" mentality, which is what many supporters of the 5-10 rule are pretty much saying. So a film doesn't get in a field of 5 -- boo-hoo! Them's the breaks.

A Best Picture nomination used to be prestigious and for a select few, now it's so-so because so many get nominated. I hope they change back ASAP.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/4/15 at 7:03pm

Furthermore, those saying that 10 was the norm from the get-go, no, it wasn't. The first year, there were only 3 nominees. In 1929, 1930, and 1931 there were 5 nominees.

Starting in 1932 until 1943 they started having 10 nominees, with 1934 and 1935 having 12 nominees.

Then from 1944 until 2008 (64 years of tradition!) they only had 5 nominees.

Having 10/12 nominees for 11 years early on was understandable, since they were trying to work out the kinks. But they only expanded the category in 2009 to appease the populace, because THE DARK KNIGHT didn't get in. It was disgusting.

[Bilbo3]

Posted: 3/4/15 at 7:03pm

Darn I really liked the 10 nominees. Was a way to honor more films even if they didn't necessarily have a great chance at the big prize.

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 7:37am

It was a huge mistake to raise it in the first place. They did it to be "inclusive" so films like "The Dark Knight" and more popular choices might get included (if you doubt that, read the press on it when it happened---or just read this article).

Instead they have more independent, art-house films that don't deserve the nomination AND four people saw them. Some of the recent nominees only received a Best Pic nomination and maybe one other. That's it. Sometimes not even one. If the film is up for the highest honor as an overall "best" choice and can't score nominations an any other category as "outstanding," then what the hell is so special about it? And something is really messed up.

I also hate the crazy, gerrymandering voting system of how they throw out percentages of the highest and lowest and end up rounding off to the square root of an isosceles triangle to get the top choices. How about something really insane, like the TOP FIVE CHOICES GET ON THE BALLOT. Crazy idea, right?

They need to stop playing politics with an elitist award that's only managed to become more elitist and less inclusive in the past decade. Well done, Academy! Well done.

EDIT: They can't have it both ways. It should be a tough competition for BEST, not a basket of lollipops to be handed out to the entire class (or not at all). The "everybody gets a gold star" mentality is burying the award and any meaning it has or had (yes, they are undermining history as well). There should be upsets and surprises and snubs. That's the drama for the public. By taking it away, you lose your audience. The award (and the Academy itself) was created as a promotional device FOR the public. It's motion picture PR to promote positive awareness of the industry. They have always needed and wanted that. But they can't pretend that it's not a competition, and a very fierce and costly (and sometimes corrupt) one at that.

Updated On: 3/5/15 at 07:37 AM

[best12bars]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 7:56am

Having 10/12 nominees for 11 years early on was understandable, since they were trying to work out the kinks.

That wasn't the reason at all. The Hollywood studios were cranking out as many as one film per week back in the mid to late 1930s and early '40s (until we entered the war). That's almost 52 movies per year, per studio. The decision was made based on the sheer volume of quality films that were being released annually by MGM, Fox, Universal, Paramount, Warner Bros., Columbia, and RKO.

No studio puts out 52 major releases per year now. Not even close.

Updated On: 3/5/15 at 07:56 AM

[Gothampc]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 10:45am

"No studio puts out 52 major releases per year now. Not even close."

No, but they run so many commercials for their films that it feels like 52.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 2:30pm

I also hate the crazy, gerrymandering voting system of how they throw out percentages of the highest and lowest and end up rounding off to the square root of an isosceles triangle to get the top choices. How about something really insane, like the TOP FIVE CHOICES GET ON THE BALLOT. Crazy idea, right?

Yeah, I don't get the voting system at all. Why not the 5 movies/actors with the most votes gets nominated and the movie/actor with the most votes wins?

[jasonf]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 4:11pm

My memory might be faulty, but since they changed the rules in 2009, have there SERIOSULY been more than 3 films that really had a shot at winning? This year was between Birdman and Boyhood, last year was between 12 Years a Slave, Gravity and American Hustle, the year before was Argo and Lincoln. No one thought any of the other films had any real shot at it.

Given that, shouldn't five nominees be enough?

[ChgoTheatreGuy]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 4:58pm

I think that if they want to make the Oscars more time managable, they should award Best Picture, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor/Actress, Director and Screenplay awards on the actual show and give out the technical awards when they have the other awards dinner in the weeks leading up to the actual show...

[StageManager2]

Posted: 3/5/15 at 5:11pm

I strongly disagree. The tech categories are not the problem.

There are 24 categories (including the shorts) and if each winner was given 2-minutes (just to be generous) to give their speech, that would only amount to 48 minutes.

So bring the honorary Oscars (Lifetime Achievement, Jean Hersholt, Irving G. Thalberg) back to the telecast, and let's give them 5 minutes each. That would be 63 minutes so far.

Plus, the "In Memoriam," another 5-minutes, so 68 minutes now.

Performance time for the 5 nominated songs, about 3 minutes each, so add 15 minutes = 83 minutes.

5 minutes for the opening monolog/song, so 88 minutes.

There, that's about 90 minutes of show. Add half-hour for commercials, and you've got a 2-hour telecast.

The show doesn't need to run 3 hours or over, and they don't need to cut categories. The reason they go so long is 'cause they pad the show with bullsh!t montages, banter, games, and tributes that have nothing to do with the films being honored.

[jasonf]

Posted: 3/6/15 at 9:07am

You forgot about the time it takes to show the clips before the nominees and the time it takes for the winners to get to the stage. You have to figure 20 seconds a nominee for the clip, and then at LEAST another 30 seconds just to get to the stage before their speeches. At 24 awards, that's 100 seconds per clip, so 2400 seconds (40 minutes)and another 12 minutes for people to get to the stage. That's another 52 minutes right there....