The 2010 Oscar Best Picture Race… What are We In For?
The game has changed... Where do we go from here?
As I sit down to ponder yesterday's news announcing the Oscars have increased the number of Best Picture nominees from five to ten beginning with the 2010 Oscars I have Michael Mann's Last of the Mohicans playing in the background. It wasn't one of the five films nominated for Best Picture at the 1993 Oscars, but with the new rules would it have been? I'm not quite sure, but I would assume The Player, Glengarry Glen Ross, Reservoir Dogs and Malcolm X would have definitely been in the mix. But would it have really mattered?
The Academy's decision to shake things up according to AMPAS President Sid Ganis is to return "to some of its earlier roots." By this he is referring to the period between 1932 and 1943 when the Best Picture category was usually made up of ten films. The exceptions in those years included the 1931/1932 ceremony with eight nominees and 1934/1935 ceremony with 12. However, is this really an attempt to go back to the old days following the 2009 Oscars, which were far from nostalgic with a rather impressive revamped ceremony?
Over at the Los Angeles Times Meg James put together a nice piece which included a quote from television analyst Larry Gerbrandt of Media Valuation Partners saying, "Hollywood is out of step with an audience that has already gone interactive with their own reviews, recommendations and Tweets. They no longer want a group of industry insiders telling them what they have already spent hard coin to validate. TV is about the mass audience, not auteurs or political correctness or even critical acclaim."
Personally I think Gerbrandt is wrong in his opinion here. People love to get the opinion of others. The problem isn't the opinion, it's the topic of conversation that upsets most people. Audiences aren't tuning out the Oscar celebration because Slumdog Millionaire won Best Picture this past year or because Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Reader were nominated. They tuned out because films such as The Dark Knight and WALL•E weren't. Gerbrandt is right about the Academy being out of step, he's just a little fuzzy on the details.
However, does adding five more slots to accommodate these films really accomplish anything? Sure, now five more films can say they were nominated for Best Picture, but it took a rules change to do so. It's like playing a game of pick-up basketball and instead of only having five people on your team you have ten, only the final five never get a chance to play. How will this be any different?
Over on Twitter, Pixar fansite UpcomingPixar.com posted a tweet saying, "What do you think about the decision to have 10 noms for Best Pic at the 2010 Oscars? I'm ecstatic because Up could be a serious contender!" Not only do I think Up is a serious contender, I think Up is a lock for a nomination now considering the dismissal of Ratatouille and WALL•E the past two years, but we aren't talking about being a serious contender for winning Best Picture, just merely getting a nomination. When the rules are changed to accommodate the masses is there anything to actually get excited about? It's like getting a trophy for being a runner-up. Worthless.
RATINGS
Obviously, appeasing the masses is the real key to this decision, not nostalgia. By making sure films liked by general audiences have a better chance at a nomination and will then be represented at the big show is sure to increase interest.
Ratings for this year's Oscars telecast were an improvement on the year prior by more than 4 million people. 36.3 million watched as Slumdog took the crown compared to the year prior when No Country for Old Men beat out Juno, Atonement, Michael Clayton and There Will be Blood. Just imagine how many more people would have watched had The Dark Knight and WALL•E been nominated, two films that managed to achieve artistic, critical and commercial appeal.
Can you believe the five Best Picture nominees in 2009, at the height of their widest release, only saw 9,121 theaters while The Dark Knight and WALL•E alone saw 8,358? Only a 763-theater differential and we're playing five-on-two here… Don't even get me started with critical ratings and box-office success because it will be hard for those five Best Picture candidates to compete with $757+ million at the domestic box-office and two films that scored 94% and 96% at RottenTomatoes.
ADVERTISING
So a ratings bump is an obvious reason and with higher ratings comes higher commercial appeal for a show that depends on advertising. The Academy's total revenue for 2008 was $81.7 million according to the "Los Angeles Times" and of that figure $73.7 million came as a result of the Oscars.
The "Los Angeles Times" goes on to say of that $81.7 million, the Academy spends $31.1 million to stage the Academy Awards, Oscar luncheons and the Governors Ball. The excess revenue is hugely important to the organization, helping it to sponsor an array of public events and exhibits, and pay for restoration work, film archives, financial grants to other institutions, student contests, screenwriting competitions and science and technology programs.
So, when the rate for a 30-second commercial in the Oscar telecast dropped to below $1 million for the first time since 1998 this year, according to the Nielsen Co., something needed to be done. The Academy had already changed the rules to allow studios to buy one 30-second commercial slot to show a trailer for one of their films and yesterday's move simply appears to be stage two.
WHAT WILL BE THE RESULT?
What will be the result of the change? Obviously, this is the big question. It's tough to say if it is a good move or a bad move until we actually see some results. My snap judgment is to say I don't like it because it lessens the value of a Best Picture nomination by half. I remember last year trying to actually put together a list of top ten films and having an extremely hard time doing it. I would argue most years don't actually churn out ten Best Picture caliber films… that is, unless the Academy is going to open up and embrace some foreign language pictures in the category, but who are we kidding? And for those of you wondering if movies like Star Trek or The Hangover now have a shot, you are kidding yourself. If a movie wasn't thought of as a possible contender before it won't be one now.
Had ten nominations been available last year what five additional films would have joined Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon, Milk, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and The Reader?
I believe The Dark Knight, WALL•E and Doubt would have been shoo-ins. Beyond that I see possibilities with The Wrestler and Vicky Cristina Barcelona. I also think we can look at films such as Revolutionary Road, Gran Torino and Happy-Go-Lucky. But at this point what are we really talking about? We're talking about people saying things such as, "It was just an honor to be nominated."
Last year Slumdog Millionaire was going to win. Everyone knew that and the addition of five additional nominees wouldn't have changed things. But to add to that, while Slumdog appeared to have an insurmountable charge behind it, what about years where the winner isn't so clear-cut? Such as… I don't know… the way 2009 is looking so far.
So far I would say The Hurt Locker and Up are the first two Best Picture contenders of 2009. I am seeing Public Enemies tonight and it may be added to that list in less than 24 hours, but we'll have to wait and see. What are we looking at beyond those three?
Photo: Weinstein Co.
Clint Eastwood's Invictus and Rob Marshall's Nine are two films I would pencil in blind. I think Mira Nair and Hilary Swank teaming for Amelia would be a good bet and with ten slots open I don't see how Matt Damon in Greengrass's Green Zone or Soderbergh's The Informant doesn't take up at least one of them. We also can't forget about the long-delayed The Road.
Then there are the smaller possibilities. Lionsgate has established a film festival charge with Precious and Jane Campion's return with Bright Star sounds promising. An Education built some early steam from the festival circuit and wouldn't it be a nice shock to see the Academy support something as off-the-wall as Lars von Trier's Antichrist (releasing on Oct. 23 by the way) sounds like it is?
The blockbusters that should gain traction begin with James Cameron's Avatar, a film that may likely be a top contender without the additional slots, we'll have to wait and see. Scorsese's Shutter Island may now stand a bigger chance, and perhaps Peter Jackson's Lovely Bones will impress.
Finally, I can't leave off the Coen brothers with A Serious Man, Jason Reitman's Up In the Air and Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life. Isn't guessing without a net fun?
With this news I need to finally get cracking on opening up The Contenders section of the site, but for now I will sit back and listen to what you have to say. Like it or not, things have gotten interesting and if nothing else it makes for great conversation.
Links from Other Sites You May Like
Showing 27 Comments
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Add a New Comment |
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Last year's nominee's (and several other years) showed how a five nominee Best Picture Race can lessen the value of the category and nomination even more so then this way. At least now the politics and Weinstein's won't have as much of a negative impact on what gets in, and tarnish an Oscar year because of it.
I don't think it'll be that much better or worse, and people are just looking too much into it too soon. However, the NBR Awards don't suffer because of 10 nominee's; and last season's Oscars would've at least been respectable had it had more then 5 nominee's.
Even with the additional slots, I still think the academy will pick two or three movies that the general public likes and the rest of the movies that most everyone will question. For example, most of the smaller, festival movies that were mentioned above will probably take up the new slots.
As for the "for your consideration" crap we might see a lot of ads just like this one for movies that don't deserve it.
Check that out, Disney's got some serious brass balls.
http://www.awardsdaily.com/FYC/gallery/2008-09/photo.php?id=1187
I think it's safe to say that this is a bad year in movies. There are only a few movies up there that I think have serious Oscar potential. In short, I think the AMPAS jumped the gun and came up a day late and a dollar short.
I didn't liked this decision.
And I don't think it's going to change anything.
Wouldn't it be pathetic if great movies like The Dark Knight or Wall-E got nominated because we had 10 slots, instead of 5? Because we know that they didn't 'deserved' (for the academy) to be in the top 5 of last year, so it's going to be a pity vote or something?
Same thing as not getting nominated at all.
@Leandro Dubost: I agree with you about not liking this decision. But I think for most viewers (we film buffs are a sure minority, no?), the change makes a big difference, because they have no clue which movies got the first couple slots, and which movies got the final slots. Not a clue. The mass public, I think, would have been waiting for Dark Knight to possibly win last year, had it been nominated under a 10-nominee system.
But yeah, I don't like the change.
I like the idea of expanding the category; but doubling it? This does let more films that appealed to mainstream audiences enter the race, but having 10 movies in the category seems a bit overwhelming. Maybe 7?
This is going to make things interesting, because now we'll wonder what films wouldn't have made it in past years instead of what should have been included, which I think hurts those films because it lowers some opinions of those films that they only are receiving the honor because of the rule change instead of improving their stock because people believed they got snubbed from a nomination. That being said Up has locked up a spot, I think Nine is in unless by some miracle it doesn't live up to expectations, Shutter Island is practically in because when was the last time Scorsese made a movie that wasn't a contender, same thing with the Eastwood and Damon movie, one movie that isn't being talked about is Away We Go, it could be one of the films that get it's shot due to the change.
Adding 5 more movies to the best picture race will only make the show longer. I find being nominated now only cheapens the value of what being nominated meant.
Sure we won't only get the year's top 5 dramas as nominations, but like it was mentioned earlier, no one cares about pity votes. Bad decision overall.
For "Up In the Air" to have shot it has to be a LOT better than the book. This is just my opinion but the book wasn't that great.
Interesting article Brad. I believe there are two other 2009 films you should consider; Where The Wild Things Are and The White Ribbon. The former just looks incredible and the latter, even though it won at Cannes, could be the type of foreign film the Academy would go for.
"If a movie wasn’t thought of as a possible contender before it won’t be one now."
Agreed, and with only 5 director and screenplay nominees, it will become extremely clear who the "added 5" are.
@Chris C.: You may have a point with Where the Wild Things Are, but I won't believe anything when it comes to that movie until I see it. As for White Ribbon, that's going Foreign category all the way… Just my opinion of course. :)
I actually think that Frozen River would have been nominated last year quite easily, considering it was nominated for Original Screenplay and Actress. I would love it if The Hurt Locker could get nominated, but I just don't see it happening. I think Precious and Up are the safest bets right now.
Yeah, The Tree of Life is coming out in 2010 now, post production is taking a while. I am telling everyone that that film is being set up, in my opinion of course, to be one of the greatest films in the last 25 years. Everyone, you'll see. And I know it wasn't received tremendously at Cannes, but don't be surprised if Inglourious Bastards is improved through re-editing enough to be one of the ten best films of the year. I am penciling in the following films for next year:
Shutter Island
The Hurt Locker
The Informant
Invicitus
Where the wild things are
Nine
The rest of the bunch, I'm not so sure. I saw the Hurt Locker recently and thought it was unbelievably great, the best film about the Iraq war ever. The rest I have not seen, but due to the director, the material , and trailers for these films, i'm sure they will be nominated
Oh, Up, that's not a great film, not even close too the level of Wall-E, Ratatouille, or Finding Nemo. And Honestly, maybe it's just because i am not the hugest fan of the medium, but I don't feel like animated films should be judged along live action films only because you don't see people's live emotions in it. It's unfair to the work that actors do for animated films to be nominated for best picture, but i don't think it's unfair for the director of an animated film to be nominated for best director, but I haven't seen any animated film that deserved that yet.
@Zack Solomon: I respect your opinion. I do believe though that UP is a great film in it's own right. I don't think direct comparisons can be made to Wall-E and Ratatouille (2 exemplary films if I may add). All 3 are different in terms of concept and theme, and all 3 and have (had) strong cases for best picture consideration. I do believe UP will get nominated. First, I think working for it is the fact that Ratatouille and Wall-E got snubbed. However, I don't think an UP nomination can be solely described as the Academy's way of "making amends" to Pixar for past snubs. Up is a strong film that definitely can stand on it's own.
@Dennis: I think there will be ten movies better then up this year. If there were ten movies last year I would be fine with Wall-E getting nominated, but this year seems like a better crop then last and Up, in my opinion, is not even close to the level of Wall-E
I think UP is in pretty good shape, so much so that I think it is a lock for a nomination. There are some nice prestige films coming out later this year, but the same thing was being said last year when Wall-E and TDK were getting serious Best Pic buzz. We all know what happened next, the presumed frontrunners didn't live up to the hype and that could happen again this year. We'll just have to wait and see. But as it stands now, I think UP has sewn a spot.
i think they will pick 5 oscar worthy films then pick the more audience appealing film
next 5 may go like:
up
shutter island
avatar
and maybe funny people or star trek?
I think that the academy shouldn't necessarily have to pick 10 films. They should just be able to flex up from 5. If there say, 7, great films this year then nominate those 7. I think 10 nominated films might be a little too excessive and a few lesser films might sneak in. But I don't know.
Adding five new nominees won't change the fact that the Academy will still most likely end up awarding the statue to a film that is inferior to at least one other film from that year. Last year, yes The Dark Knight would have been rightfully nominated, but Slumdog still would have won. The Academy often picks movies that do not stand up to time at all. Here's a couple titles of films that have won in the past, let's see how well they hold up today: Ordinary People, Dances With Wolves, The English Patient, and Shakespeare In Love. Not too impressive, if you ask me. Now look at what films these winners won over consecutively: Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Fargo, and Saving private Ryan. No matter how many nominees there will be, the Academy will likely pick a sub-par film that sparks the interest of the moment, and that will fizzle out two days after the statue is handed out. Case in point, Shakespeare In Love.
Ah face it… with 10 Best Pic noms and all the other categories 5, we'll quickly see what movies were deemed to be the best by the total amount of nominations.
Will it make much difference? Only in the length of the telecast: "Here in a clip from our 8th nominated film…."
I will make a prediction for Best Picture in 2010 The Movie Nine will collect the following – Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay Adaption, Cinematography, Art Direction.
Nominating 10 best pictures will hardly change the nature of AMPAS to pick some of the worst nominees for oscar.
Still can't figure out what's wrong with people. Why they are all fussing about Slumdog Millionaire? Haven't they seen any better film before? People of Oscar can be dumb enough to give out 8 oscars to this film but how come the moviegoers compare 'Slumdog Millionaire' with 'City of God' . . . hah.
Slumdog is no where near to City of God. Because it has an inconsistent screenplay, flawed editing, good acting yet very unrealistic and worst score from one of the best musicians of the world, A. R. Rahman (his career's worst no doubt because he is one of the few who captivated me for last 16 years by his music until Slumdog)
Same goes to TDK which made me confused about Chris Nolan's talent for the second time after Batman Begins. Yet TDK is better than Slumdog, but since it was snubbed from best picture nomination, its not bothering me anymore . . .
Let's go back to the original topic. The bright side of nominating 10 film for best picture category is it will let another 5 film take the glory of best picture nomination. That's it . .
May be we have to wait till 2010's oscar to truly judge the decision of nominating 10 best pictures is right or wrong.
I don't get why "Shutter Island" is getting so little attention in these conversations. Scorsese has directed numerous great movies and garnered the top awards for several of them, and his most recent "The Departed" (2007 Best Picture) proves that he is still in top form. I am thoroughly expecting "Shutter Island" to be one of the best films this year.
Winners
1. Inglorious Bastards – Best Picture, Best Director, Best original Screen Play, Make up Cinematography
2. The Road – Best addapted screen play.
3. Shutter Island – Best Supporting Actress (Emily Mortimer)
4. Five Minutes in Heaven – Best Supporting Actor (Jason Nesbitt)
5. Amelia – Best Actress (Hillary Swank)
6. Invictus – Best Actor (Morgan Freeman), Costume Design
7. UP – Best banimated Picture
8. Star Trek – Sound Mixing, Art Direction
9. Public Enimies – Sound Editing
10. Iron Man 2 – Visual Effects
11. Capitalism a love Story – Documetry Film
Actually, the added noms will of course have a greater chance on getting the statue since the academy members votes for the winner.
What is wrong with you people? Star Trek not having a shot? I think the people at the academy need to get their heads examined. The Empire Strikes Back, what is ravingly known and accepted as the greatest science ficiton film of all time was never even seemed to be thought of. The one dimensional approach of these old farts that determine what movies are contenders needs to be examined and movies that are top contenders need to actually be movies that are top contenders. Star Trek was awesome. Aliens and Terminator (from James Cameron) were epic. Avatar looks like it will be awesome.
I hate to say it, but I really don't give a crap what the academy thinks at this point because they never nominate Science Fiction Films, they never give them their due credit when actors make huge strides in them – Seeing Sigourney Weaver overcome her worst fears to save poor little Newt in Aliens deserves an Oscar. Arnold Schwartzeneggars rock solid performance as the T-101 in Terminator deserved an Oscar. HARRISON FORD as HAN SOLO IN THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK NOT ONLY DESERVES AN OSCAR HE DESERVES A REWARD THAT PARALLELS THE RESPECT HE GETS IN TERMS OF FAME AND FORTUNE FROM WHAT HE DID IN THIS ROLE. YOU CANNOT DENY HIS FAME AND FORTUNE.
I have a VERY VERY LOW OPINION of the "Academy" – these old farts want to nominate Driving Miss Daisy. Get off your butts and watch some of the cutting edge stuff that people spent YEARS building and perfecting. Maybe then I will give a ****
Thanks.
wonder how Precious will play out…