Heeeey, how about that?

[apocalypsos]

The Academy Awards next year are expanding the Best Picture category to ten nominees rather than five.

See, on one hand, I see what they're getting at and I fully support it. After Dark Knight got shut out, they heard about it. And they recognize Up as a possible contender next year. So this is their way of opening up the nomination field to more popular nominees.

But on the other hand ... why can't they just keep it at five and stop being so damn addicted to art-house flicks? Look, I like art-house flicks, too, but they're not the be-all, end-all of existence. Maybe instead of opening the field to more nominees, they should stop blowing the Sundance community every year when the nominations come around.

Comments

[minaloush.livejournal.com]

I don't know - I think, honestly, art-house flicks tend to be better. I think part of that is less of the tendency to focus-group them. I think fewer popular nominees is for the best. I don't really follow the Academy Awards, because...well, why?

Nothing has been hit home to me in the last year as much as how many fucking mediocre movies are out there and how little they deserve the acclaim they get.

Up is good, don't get me wrong - but I don't think it's a Best Picture nominee.

[lilacsigil.livejournal.com]

If they picked the GOOD arthouse flicks, which they only occasionally do, I wouldn't mind at all. Instead, they tend to pick these weird middle-brow, wanna-be-arty, wide release movies (like Benjamin Button) to feel like they've done their arty duty without having to think too hard. About as many genuine arthouse movies get in as blockbusters, I think.

(I would rather have seen Iron Man with nominations than Dark Knight, though! /traitor Aussie)

[fileg.livejournal.com]

I think this is economy driven. Lots of people try to see the best movie nominees, so let's make them go out twice as often. But I'll be interested to see what kind of movies get attention because of the change.