Should the Academy return to 5 BP nominees? 10 nominees? Or stay the same?

[Blasty]

LOL I feel like I was just arguing in a thread on this last year.

I'm a traditionalist. I grew up with the drama of getting into 5 and that is what I love. I'm sorry but for me it cheapens the importance and prestige of the Picture nods to have so many and yes, I know there was a period in the late '30s-40 when there were 10 but it was brief. And it isn't what one associates the Best Picture category with. It's just boring for them to nominate EVERYTHING in best picture - pretty much ALL the contenders get nominated now. It's all very obvious and utterly without suspense or excitement - I don't even care what gets nominated anymore - there's no point because EVERY friggin contender DOES get nominated now - it basically makes oscarwatching in this category superfluous. But those are just selfish reasons of course.

I also don't like the arbitrary nature of them having that ONE category with 10 but all the others with 5 - that makes no sense to me and is stupid. It's also stupid to allow artists to receive multiple nominations in every field BUT acting as well - that will always be my biggest beef with the academy - I wish they would allow the actors to get multiple nominations if they qualify - it's absolutely dishonest and hypocritical to prevent the biggest vote getters from getting nominated just because they might be from the same person in acting but allow it for composers and cinematographers, ect.

[Scarmi]

LOL I feel like I was just arguing in a thread on this last year.

I'm a traditionalist. I grew up with the drama of getting into 5 and that is what I love. I'm sorry but for me it cheapens the importance and prestige of the Picture nods to have so many and yes, I know there was a period in the late '30s-40 when there were 10 but it was brief. And it isn't what one associates the Best Picture category with. It's just boring for them to nominate EVERYTHING in best picture - pretty much ALL the contenders get nominated now. It's all very obvious and utterly without suspense or excitement - I don't even care what gets nominated anymore - there's no point because EVERY friggin contender DOES get nominated now - it basically makes oscarwatching in this category superfluous. But those are just selfish reasons of course.

I completely agree with this. The only argument in favor of the new system seems to be that some better choices have gotten nominated, but it's equally true that a lot of duds have gotten in basically by default, and it's obvious that the "good" choices in the #6-10 (really, like, #4-10) slots don't have a chance in hell, so who cares? I don't understand the argument that having even more nonstarter options than we did before makes it more exciting. I think it actually makes it less likely that a true upset can happen in BP because it's harder to find a consensus underdog candidate.

[Elessar]

LOL I feel like I was just arguing in a thread on this last year.

I'm a traditionalist. I grew up with the drama of getting into 5 and that is what I love. I'm sorry but for me it cheapens the importance and prestige of the Picture nods to have so many and yes, I know there was a period in the late '30s-40 when there were 10 but it was brief. And it isn't what one associates the Best Picture category with. It's just boring for them to nominate EVERYTHING in best picture - pretty much ALL the contenders get nominated now. It's all very obvious and utterly without suspense or excitement - I don't even care what gets nominated anymore - there's no point because EVERY friggin contender DOES get nominated now - it basically makes oscarwatching in this category superfluous. But those are just selfish reasons of course.

I also don't like the arbitrary nature of them having that ONE category with 10 but all the others with 5 - that makes no sense to me and is stupid. It's also stupid to allow artists to receive multiple nominations in every field BUT acting as well - that will always be my biggest beef with the academy - I wish they would allow the actors to get multiple nominations if they qualify - it's absolutely dishonest and hypocritical to prevent the biggest vote getters from getting nominated just because they might be from the same person in acting but allow it for composers and cinematographers, ect.

I completely agree with this. The only argument in favor of the new system seems to be that some better choices have gotten nominated, but it's equally true that a lot of duds have gotten in basically by default, and it's obvious that the "good" choices in the #6-10 (really, like, #4-10) slots don't have a chance in hell, so who cares? I don't understand the argument that having even more nonstarter options than we did before makes it more exciting. I think it actually makes it less likely that a true upset can happen in BP because it's harder to find a consensus underdog candidate.

Thanks, guys. I was starting to feel outnumbered.

[with_one_voice]

I appreciate the previous 2-3 posts, and am inclined to agree. While it seems like the biggest positive of the expanded lineup is that it allows more good choices to be nominated, it similarly allows more duds to be nominated. We got The Tree of Life, but we also got Extremely Loud, while at the same time, diminishing the prestige of being a BP nominee by doubling the number of such nominees. Plus, if the concern is just to nominate lots of good films, why stop the expansion at 10? Why not nominate 15 films?

I also agree w/ Blasty's point about why does this category have 10, while all the others have 5? It makes it seem really random and arbitrary to me. For example, why not expand each acting category to 10 nominees? That would allow more great work to be recognized. We would've had Marion Cotillard as a nominee this year, and Dwight Henry, and a bunch of others. I think the rationale behind not going to 10, though, is that it then feels like it's too much -- that too many performances(/films) are being recognized that it cheapens the specialness of the distinction.

[Bean]

Picture gets ten nominees because it's the most important award! I think it reflects how a lot of voters likely think about the races, too. I can pretty easily name the ten best movies I saw in a year, but sputter to name 3 or 4 acting nominees.

[James]

I love the current format for Best Picture. I understand the criticism of the roving number of Best Picture nominees, but I happen to like it, as an acknowledgment that there may not necessarily be an even five or ten films to recognize in a year. I wouldn't mind if this system was expanded to the other top 8 categories. But I don't think that is a necessity.

[jb]

Bring back Best Picture, Unique and Artistic Production!

[Jali]

I don't understand, at all, why people thinks that more than 5 nominees is a bad thing for the prestige of the Best Picture award. The Academy won that prestige in the 30s when they nominated 10 films instead of 5.

[Narendra]

Now with the Bigelow and Affleck snubs, are we going to get the "5 to 10" rule in Beast Director too?

They added these extra 5 slots just because The Dark Knight was overlooked (), but then again, this situation can happen in any category (especially the acting ones). Whether we like it or not, snubs happen all the time. People need to accept that.

[McTeague]

I was in favour of the current system, but I must say Blasty's argument convinces me more and mroe each day. Nothing equals the drama of OMG Dark Knight WAS SNUBBED!!!! (or Cold Mountain, or 7-nominee Bullets over Broadway missing out in favour of Four Weddings and a Funeral).

[Souler]

I like the current system well enough, but it hasn't really led to what I expected: keep out those contenders that underwhelm and just coast on year-long traction. War Horse and Extremely Loud, Les Miz to an extent too. The fun of seeing pre-ordained contenders fall at the last hurdle (Dreamgirls, Cold Mountain) is pretty much gone now. I dunno, I'd like the new system to result in a low number of nominees, like 6 for once. So far it's not been much of a change from having 10 nominees.

I do suspect we won't see the current arrangement lasting forever. I can see them returning to 5 nominees, although not soon, cause that would be like admitting the system was a failure. When they need some extra publicity again. Oscar returns to its roots!

[siowafc]

I do hope we can all remember the point of the Academy Awards is not necessarily to be "more dramatic" but to find ways to reward and celebrate films that people love. If being just a little more inclusive allows them to prevent enraging a significant portion of their audience, that's a win-win scenario. And all of the nominees this year are remarkably well-reviewed and almost all of them have done incredibly well at the box office, so I don't understand how the award is cheapened by the Academy endorsing those films.

[Thomas]

I completely agree with this. The only argument in favor of the new system seems to be that some better choices have gotten nominated, but it's equally true that a lot of duds have gotten in basically by default, and it's obvious that the "good" choices in the #6-10 (really, like, #4-10) slots don't have a chance in hell, so who cares? I don't understand the argument that having even more nonstarter options than we did before makes it more exciting. I think it actually makes it less likely that a true upset can happen in BP because it's harder to find a consensus underdog candidate.

LOL.
Duds were always nominated. Look at the BP lineup the year Slumdog won. Filled with duds. AMPAS will always love the Frost/Nixons and Readers. But the fact that you know can add deliberately good or even great movies to the plate is pretty good. They may not have much of a chance, but how is that different from most years before anyway?

[Bean]

I do hope we can all remember the point of the Academy Awards is not necessarily to be "more dramatic" but to find ways to reward and celebrate films that people love. If being just a little more inclusive allows them to prevent enraging a significant portion of their audience, that's a win-win scenario. And all of the nominees this year are remarkably well-reviewed and almost all of them have done incredibly well at the box office, so I don't understand how the award is cheapened by the Academy endorsing those films.

[McTeague]

I do hope we can all remember the point of the Academy Awards is not necessarily to be "more dramatic"

Boo, you party pooper.

[crazyfists3600]

Thanks, guys. I was starting to feel outnumbered.

I'm with you. I only nominate 5 for personal awards, and I feel like that is the way it should be. That said, I will admit to enjoying the fact that some films without a chance in hell in a five nominee field have gotten nominated. Beasts and Amour are great examples. Still, I do agree that the larger field cheapens the honor, even if most the nominated five would be...cheap.

[shooter_mcgavin]

5 For me even though I loved The Dark Knight ... having 10 nominees isn't going to fix the problem if the average voter age is like 70. I mean The Dark Knight was even hated by Lorenzo Semple (if you remember he has/had a web show on his thoughts in movies). He's like 90 years old and was the writer of the 80's Flash Gordon and 60's Batman TV Series. And yep he's also an Oscar Voter ... he hated The Dark Knight and felt that the portrayal of Batman was not the right one.

So expanding to 10 might include some interesting choices but then it doesn't matter if the voting taste as a whole isn't going to change.

As a race, it is far more exciting now.
We have had these films as best picture nominees the past years:

District 9
Amour
Inception
Up
A Serious Man
The Tree of Life

That is awesome!

Inception was probably in the 5th slot ... I could actually have seen Black Swan miss out and get the sole directing nod. Inception was actually very strong in the precursors only missing SAG I believe and Black Swan missed out on Supporting Actress and Screenplay.

[rodeodangerqueen]

I liked the system better when it was a strict 10 nominee system. The math of the current process is really...odd.

I know I'm not the first to chime in and reply here, but me too.

[LeonardShelby]

I like the up to 10 nominees. I like seeing films like Django, Inception, District 9 among Best Picture nominees and deservedly so.

[Capt. January]

I also don't like the arbitrary nature of them having that ONE category with 10 but all the others with 5 - that makes no sense to me and is stupid. It's also stupid to allow artists to receive multiple nominations in every field BUT acting as well - that will always be my biggest beef with the academy - I wish they would allow the actors to get multiple nominations if they qualify - it's absolutely dishonest and hypocritical to prevent the biggest vote getters from getting nominated just because they might be from the same person in acting but allow it for composers and cinematographers, ect.

Definitely agree with this part. but I like the possibility of more than 5 as it allows us to honor films that deserve it. Little gems like "A Serious MInd" (and arguably "Beasts of the Southern Wild") deserve to be honored with IMO. Also, would it be better to look back at a list of nominees and NOT be reminded that something like "Tree of Life" was a contender?

My peeve is the fact that voters seem to rally around only one or two front-runners. In which case I propose the very crass option of having more than five nominees at the beginning of the season and then cutting it down to 3 finalists in the final two weeks. Because, really, it isn't important if there were 5 or 12 horses in the race - in the end the only thing that matters is who went nose to nose in the final minutes.