Today the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences announced that they are increasing the number of Best Picture nominees from five to ten. Now this could mean that a.) the race will be more suspenseful because more quality films will be in the mix, and b.) Rob Schneider might finally get one of his pictures nominated.But it could also make the telecast (airing on ABC next year) even longer than it is now, and every year we have speeches cut short by music and the show threatening to bleed over into local news. But beyond more Best Picture nominees, what else should they change?
Andy Richter: The TV Squad Interview
Have any questions for Vik Sahay of Chuck? Ask them here!
Mike Henry and Daryl Hall on a Cleveland Show Thanksgiving
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
6-24-2009 @ 7:41PM
izikavazo said...
The problem with the OScars is the tradition. They can't redo the entire format without losing their cred (what little they have left). It would be nice to have a more entertaining list of categories, but that's not going to happen.
I think what needs to change is the film selection. When was the last time a movie won that wasn't released in November or December? And when was the last time a movie won that was successful (honestly successful, not just a $50 mil, like $250 mil)? The problem is that out of everyone I know only about 10% of them have watched the nominated movies. I have to go very far out of my way to watch the nominated films. It shouldn't be that hard, and it wouldn't be that hard if they started nominating movies that were released throughout the year instead of in the last week of December.
I have to say that I love the fact that they allowed new movie trailers in last year. That was surprisingly exciting. It woulnd't be the worst thing in the world if the Oscars turned into a movie lovers dream come true, with only trailers for commercials. That would be better than all the shampoo commercials we usually get. But I'm just fantisizing now.
I thinkt his 10 nominations thing is a misguided step towards the mainstream. It's not the worst thing in the world, in the end we're going to know which movies stand a chance and which don't. I think we should be happy that the Academy is even willing to change anything.
Reply
6-24-2009 @ 8:41PM
CParis said...
I assumed this move was just a ploy for ratings. TV ratings have been tanking, I think the last big numbers were when megahit Titanic was nominated.
Few people tune in to see "little art film A" vs. "little art film B" in the big race.
Just think of all of the fans tuning in to see "Transformers 8", "BigExplosions II", "BroMance III" face off for the big prize.
6-24-2009 @ 9:00PM
Bo3b said...
You really don't know your box office scores do you? Take special note of some of these...Even Slumdog Millionaire made 141M....And there's more than a couple HUGE ones here, like Titanic, Forrest Gump and ROTK.
Do some research. Oh wait...I did it for you.
2008 Slumdog Millionaire
$141,319,928
2007 No Country for Old Men
$74,283,625
2006 The Departed
$132,384,315
2005 Crash
$54,580,300
2004 Million Dollar Baby
$100,492,203
2003 The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
$377,027,325
2002 Chicago
$170,687,518
2001 A Beautiful Mind
$170,742,341
2000 Gladiator
$187,705,427
1999 American Beauty
$130,096,601
1998 Shakespeare in Love
$100,317,794
1997 Titanic
$600,788,188
1996 The English Patient
$78,676,425
1995 Braveheart
$75,609,945
1994 Forrest Gump
$329,694,499
1993 Schindler's List
$96,065,768
1992 Unforgiven
$101,157,447
1991 The Silence of the Lambs
$130,742,922
1990 Dances with Wolves
$184,208,848
1989 Driving Miss Daisy
$106,593,296
1988 Rain Man
$172,825,435
6-24-2009 @ 7:52PM
Leroy said...
For those of us who understand math, this increases the unpredictability of the results. It also means that it would be possible (though unlikely) for a film to win best picture with 11% of the votes unless they institute an instant run-off or ranked voting system.
Reply
6-24-2009 @ 9:33PM
Jimmy said...
I understand math, but I don't understand how it will increase unpredictability. It's not like the winners are drawn out of a hat and have equal odds of winning. Now we'll just end up with a winner and nine also-rans instead of four, right?
Back to the subject at hand: I would get rid of the forced banter between the presenters and let the winners give longer speeches.
I also think adding extra nominees will damage the credibility of the award. Think of the marketing possibilities, e.g. "Nominated for 23 Academy Awards" on a Will Ferrell DVD!
6-25-2009 @ 8:40AM
Leroy said...
Do you imagine that with five films the winner has a majority of the votes? This is highly unlikely. There are usually at least two films that are front runners and three others that each have their supporters. Since they don't release the votes, it's hard to know, but even in local elections where there are multiple candidates, there are frequent run-off elections between the two highest vote getters because no one got a majority.
It is probably rare for any award category with five nominations to have a winner who took a majority of the vote. Most people assume differently, and the media generally behaves as though every winner got all the votes. Why do you think there are frequent surprises with the awards, particularly when there are two front runners in an acting category from the same film?
6-24-2009 @ 9:18PM
bevo said...
Shorten it to 60 minutes and tell me who won best actor, best actress, best editor, best screenplay, best writer, best director, and best picture.
In. Out. Done. Don't care about the rest.
And for god's sake, stop the acceptance speeches. Your best lines were written by someone else.
Reply
6-24-2009 @ 9:26PM
Master Cylinder said...
Why not just call the whole thing off? There is no reason for award shows to be on television.
Reply
6-24-2009 @ 10:09PM
Scott said...
4 words: Let the winners talk.
Some of the best moments have been the genuine outpouring of emotion by those who won. Think Halle Berry, or Julia Roberts, or Cuba Gooding Jr., or Roberto Benigni. Give me an extra 90 seconds of that instead of hours of scripted banter and dance numbers.
Reply
6-25-2009 @ 1:21AM
Sam said...
I have an idea: make it commercial free. Would cut an hour-plus right out of it. Take a cut of the Transformers 2 gross; at least then the movie can be good for something.
Reply
6-25-2009 @ 8:21AM
Lisa said...
My favorite awards show is the Tony's and it comes in on time (or just a minute or two over) because they only show the major presentations and cut to a fast reel of the rest. The Oscars need to put more awards into their 'technical' night and do the same thing. Lord knows I love costuming but who really cares to hear from the winner and there are many others that fit this bill. They also spend too much time on the upfront schlock - if it ain't Billy Crystal it ain't worth the time, IMO.
Reply
6-25-2009 @ 12:27PM
xtinemichele said...
Making the Oscars more entertaining? I'll make it simple (and ride on Lisa's comment) - have Bret Michaels get smashed by a set piece after each award is given. Makes me laugh every time.
But, really, main awards only (actors, actresses, screenplay(s), director and picture), no splashy (and usually awful) production numbers, a longer acceptance speech window and, for God's sake, cut the audio from the audience during the "In Memoriam" segment. I always feel bad for the people who died whose names are met with a smattering of applause.
Reply
6-25-2009 @ 4:19PM
Leroy said...
As to improving the show, I'd suggest using an idea theater blogger Peter Filichia suggested for the Tony Awards. (Let me warn the rabidly spoilerphobic right now that you will not like this.)
Do the show live early in the day, then edit it for broadcast that night. Cut out all the mispronounced readings of the nominees and simply list them all on screen while the winner is announced. Edit the acceptance speeches to exclude all the endless thanks to people the TV audience has never heard of, and only include anything actually interesting or touching that the winner said. This would leave much more time for clips and other forms of actual information and entertainment.
Reply
9-02-2009 @ 1:05AM
Thogek said...
The Academy is planning to use instant-runoff voting for the best-picture category to avoid the win-with-11% potential. See http://oscar-watch.ew.com/2009/08/31/academy-changes-best-picture-voting-rules/ and http://www.thehugoawards.org/2009/09/oscars-copy-hugos/
Get a quick walk-through of how instant-runoff voting works (and what's good about it) at http://is.gd/2LWOc
It's nowhere near as complicated as many people seem to think it is, and generally cuts down on the wasted-vote and spoiler-candidate effects.
Reply