'Star Trek' Now Guaranteed a Best Picture Nom

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

Because of studio uproar over The Dark Knight failing to get a Best Picture nom last year, and mainstream pics losing out to arthouse movies in general for nominations, the studios have pressured AMPAS to bend to their wills a little more.

It's interesting how the news is being spun. Studio-asskissing trade Variety trupmets it as if it's some great innovation:

Oscar is opening up his playing field in a big way next year.

The Motion Picture Academy announced Wednesday that for the first time in more than 65 years, the field of best picture nominees will be expanded to 10 contenders for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards.

"Having 10 best picture nominees is going allow Academy voters to recognize and include some of the fantastic movies that often show up in the other Oscar categories but have been squeezed out of the race for the top prize," said Acad prexy Sid Ganis in announcing the shift. "I can't wait to see what that list of 10 looks like when the nominees are announced in February."

The last time the Oscar race featured 10 best pic contenders was the 16th annual contest in 1943, when "Casablanca" emerged with the top prize. There were 10 best pic noms for most of the Academy Awards' first decade. In 1935 there was a bumper crop of 12 nominees.

Acad's decision will undoubtedly add heat to next year's Oscar campaigning, especially in a year when no obvious front-runners have emerged in the first half. The move also comes on the heels of biz complaints that the Acad's rule of limiting the pic nominees to the top five vote-getters elbows out some of the more popular titles, such as last year's B.O. champ "The Dark Knight."

Oscar noms will be announced Feb. 2 with the awards handed out March 7 at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood.

Meanwhile, DHD's Nikki Finke tells it like it really is:

This hugely surprising and dramatic change for the 82nd Academy Awards is the direct result of intense lobbying by the major studios of the Academy Of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. And outgoing president Sid Ganis, himself a former Sony/Columbia top executive, was especially vulnerable to the studio pressure because of his personality penchant for kowtowing to power and influence. I've learned he personally helped the studios impose their agenda on what is supposed to be the independent AMPAS board (but really isn't). This is a terrible idea. It is nothing short of nonsensical for such an extreme departure from the Academy Awards' storied past to be taking place. It devalues the rarity of an Oscar nomination and belittles the judging process. It's no secret that the studios have grown increasingly frustrated that their mainstream fare -- the four-quadrant films, the family-oriented toons, the superhero actioners, and the high-octane thrillers -- have not been able to garner enough Best Picture nods in recent years while the art house offerings of the rapidly dwindling specialty divisions and indie prods dominate the process. That, in turn, has hurt the Oscar broadcast ratings as little seen and often little known films compete with one another while blockbuster hits are left out of the Academy Awards show. AMPAS buckled for reasons of self-preservation. Understandable, to be sure. But today's announcement cheapens the entire nominating process. Why not 10 Best Actor or Best Actress or Best Director or Best Foreign Film nominations as well? The studios got what they wanted at the expense of the Academy's integrity.

Anyway, this means "Up" will be nominated too, in fact anything that Pixar makes from now on will be automatically nominated. Also, the highest-grossing film of the year, no matter how bad it is, will be nommed as well, like some "Honorable Mention" prize that the studios can hold up as if it meant something.

 

[DarthSikle]

They used to always have 10 pictures nominated

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

Back in the 40's they did. It was a different Hollywood back then.

 

[curiousa2z]

boy ain't that the truth.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

Lately, they've been having a hard time finding FIVE movies to nominate. How the hell are they gonna come up with 10. I realize that the "serious" movie season doesn't start until fall, but aside from "Up", can you name one other movie that would get serious consideration?

The Hangover....best movie of the year, no shot at getting a nomination.

 

[Eggs Mayonnaise]

Lately, they've been having a hard time finding FIVE movies to nominate. How the hell are they gonna come up with 10. I realize that the "serious" movie season doesn't start until fall, but aside from "Up", can you name one other movie that would get serious consideration?

The Hangover....best movie of the year, no shot at getting a nomination.

Well, that's kind of the point of why this is a stupid, crass move on the Academy's part. The major studios don't think that they necessarily make better movies and get snubbed -- they just want representation for their inferior movies so that they can use the prestige to sell more tickets/DVDs/downloads.

The Academy is supposed to be about peers honoring the best work, and if peers think that arty movies are better than "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry", well, that's their right and their business. It shouldn't matter if the winning films aren't as easily recognizable to people in Kansas.

There already is a People's Choice Awards for popularity. But now the Oscars have been raped by the studios, and their reputation will be crap after next year.

I know, who cares, right? It's just sad that in a supposed free market economy, there is absolutely no incentive to strive for excellence anywhere. Just find your favorite gravy train, jump on, and if you play by the rules you'll get a piece of the pie. Just don't care about anything and you'll be fine.

Sigh. Weird day.

 

[Big Dick McGee]

^^I missed the tone of your original post, I thought you were in favor of more noms, because it meant blockbusters would have an equal chance at winning.

Which, of course, they do. If they're good movies, in and of their own right. Titanic? Still the biggest grossing movie in history. Return of the King? Made assloads of money. I could go on.

Your point is well-taken, it's just the studios trying to get their marginal movies nominated. Doesn't surprise me, though. Hollywood execs are replaced by younger ones every 5-7 years. The ones in charge now (who, btw are younger than both of us and make more in year than we will in 5) grew up in a generation where everyone got a little league trophy, and winning didn't matter as long as you tried your best.

Ugh.

 

[Conchaga]

I lost all respect for the Academy when they awarded Halle Berry an Oscar. Not only that, but they gave Monster's Ball a best original screenplay award. That movie sucked.

Anyway, the only reason Halle got the Oscar was political. It was high time that they give an award to a black woman, and she probably bribed the most people. Afterward Berry ran around telling everyone that they had to pay her more money (and give her tons of screen time *cough*X3*cough*) because she was an Oscar winner. It's a crock.

It's all pageantry anyway. Screw the Academy.