omg. While that would and should never happen, the entertainment factor would be through the roof. Can you imagine all the mudslinging going on? Harvey would likely end up in jail halfway through.
omg. While that would and should never happen, the entertainment factor would be through the roof. Can you imagine all the mudslinging going on? Harvey would likely end up in jail halfway through.
I think the very best argument in favor of the expanded field is to just look at the last four sets of BP nominees versus the four sets before that. The expanded field has given us much deeper and more interesting fields, with more small gems and huge populist films, and made it all but impossible to have a dull year like 2004 or 2008 to happen again.
But we all know what the Top 5-6 is? I mean, Argo vs. Lincoln vs. Life of Pi is just as dull. Django (or Amour) would have existed and would have made 2012 a great year if it hadn't been an Oscar nominee too. Having them in the BP rooster with no chance at a win doesn't make it any less dull.
I find that it makes bellyaching about mediocre winners MUCH more palatable when they at least go through the trouble of nominating better alternates.It's hard to get mad about Million Dollar Baby winning in 2004 because the alternatives were so uninspiring within the field, and the possibility of an Eternal Sunshine or Before Sunset breaking through were so remote. But now I can dance and tell and caterwaul forever because the Academy voters had Django Unchained or The Tree of Life or whatever on the ballot and still went milquetoast.
Re. dullness of the race:
How it is in the Film Festivals with all those films in competition? Is there a race at all?
The eventual dullness of Oscar race might come from the long time between precursors and opening the envelope. Campaigning sometimes begin (as Anne Hathaway's / Heath Ledger´s) while films are still in production. In AD of course, we begin campaigns the moment a film project is announced.