What is Digg?76 Comments
- thanakar, on 06/25/2009, -0/+62All this really does is allow more movies to sport the title of "Nominated for Best Picture"
- mac888, on 06/24/2009, -1/+31If they're not going to list runners up in order, what's the point? Moreover, Pixar still won't win Best Picture.
That is, the amount of substance—actual physical Oscars—isn't increased by this move, but the hype will. Making these awards even more vacuous and vapid can't be a good thing. - holzp, on 06/25/2009, -0/+26Part of the Motion Picture Stimulus Act of 2009.
- whahaa, on 06/25/2009, -2/+26increase the number of best picture nominees when the quality of movies is worse than ever? why?
wait, let me guess.
1. double the number of best picture nominees.
2. print 'nominated for best picture' on twice as many dvd boxes.
3. profit. - robEstyles, on 06/25/2009, -1/+23Theres been years when it's hard to find 5 nominees let alone 10.
- temsi, on 06/25/2009, -2/+23Of course, this simply expands the number to 10 for movies that can advertise themselves as "Best Picture Nominees"
Yes, there's a lot of good movies each year, but honestly, do 10 really deserve a "Best Picture" nomination?
I can't help but think this somehow cheapens the nomination. - TheSkunkMonkey, on 06/25/2009, -1/+15Ding! That's exactly why they are doing this, to increase potential profits for even more ***** movies.
- Ninh, on 06/25/2009, -0/+13It will be a real challenge to scare up ten unique contenders among those incestuous few the Academy nominates for about everything every year.
- Dalhectar, on 06/25/2009, -1/+14Next year they'll steal "Best Kiss" from the MTV movie awards in an effort to boost ratings.
WEAK
Filling out the best picture category with 6-10 shouldn't matter if you can pick 1-5 correctly. I see this as diminishing the award rather than boosting it. - Takfam, on 06/25/2009, -1/+10In other words "Hey, we're still going to pick 5 of the same boring ***** movies that somehow get considered groundbreaking, even though nobody enjoys them. But at least you bourgeoisie plebes will stop grabbing at our ankles when we throw you a small concession and nominate "Harold and Kumar go to the Moon" for best picture."
- Alli3388, on 06/25/2009, -1/+8That's just dumb. That will end up including every single half decent film made during the year. Not very discriminating.
- RepublicofJosh, on 06/25/2009, -3/+9The book is a best seller. That is enough for me.
-Chuck Palahniuk fan - Alabaster1234, on 06/25/2009, -2/+7Enough with the obsessed Fight Club love. It was a great manly movie that had some plot twists in it, but it wasn't even in the same ballpark as American Beauty that year, and to say otherwise is more fanboyish stupidity.
- athinnes, on 10/01/2009, -1/+6This could be a good move in that it would help more indie projects get recognition. That is, if they actually nominate worthy films.
- ruarctb, on 06/25/2009, -0/+5Pixar deserves an best picture Oscar. They've done some really amazing films of late.
- tgrenier, on 06/25/2009, -0/+4What would the extra five have been this year?
The Dark Knight
WALL-E
The Wrestler
?? - Fixhotep, on 06/25/2009, -0/+4Generally that is true. However, I think this is an effort to include foreign and animated films. If you really include foreign films, getting 10 shouldnt be a problem.
Films like Waltz with Bashir, The Downfall, Pans Labyrinth, Merry Christmas, The Lives of Others can get the nominations they deserved - Leezus, on 06/25/2009, -1/+5Yep, it's a lame move.
- NathanielJ, on 06/25/2009, -0/+4No, they're doing it because ratings for the Oscars have been dwindling year after year because the Best Picture pool never has anything that anyone has heard of in it. Now they'll nominate (but not award) a few mainstream movies too to get the TV ratings.
- jfield1, on 06/25/2009, -6/+9What a foolish decision. They are getting closer and closer to obsolescence with passing year.
- mikbunn, on 06/25/2009, -1/+4Even if they were seriously considered, I doubt that their next two films (Toy Story 3 and Cars 2) will be anywhere as transcendental as Wall-E.
- mrkmrk, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3Scrappy: You suck.
- cubicledrone, on 06/25/2009, -0/+3Iron Man 2 NOMINATED FOR BEST PICTURE OF THE YEARRRRRR. Ten dollah please.
- themonkmob, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2yes, but the academy doesn't see any of this "profit." So it really isn't advantageous to the Academy. Honestly, it's just a dumb move all together. We're gonna start seeing ***** that doesn't need to be up there in the first place. I'm happy with 5 maybe 6 nominations. Or better yet - why do they have to have a quota? Why not just nominate GOOD MOVIES???
- graeh, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2It's unpopular, I would imagine, but I'm of the view that there is a lot of really, really entertaining stuff coming out these days.
Sure, not everything is a Taxi Driver, or Amelie, or Fight Club, but we really do seem to be in a period of decently entertaining movies and tv shows. Particularly in the last few years, the Tobias Funke stigma of being a TV Actor has been replaced by a lot of really decent actors being in decent TV shows as well as movies.
Like I said - it's popular to say everything sucks - but I can't think of another period in time where ther ewas as much decent TV and as many decently entertaining movies.
I find heading down to my local DVD store - the 'TV series' section has gone from non-existent 5 years ago, to taking up a huge portion of the store. And chances are, if you randomly pick something with a decent looking cover/actors - it won't suck. And a series marathon later - you find your weekend has magically disappeared.
So 10 movies instead of 5 - at the oscars - seems inoffensive. - fadetoone, on 06/25/2009, -2/+4Do they do something like best picture per genre? Like best Action movie... best comedy? I'd rather they add that.
- Animan351, on 06/25/2009, -3/+5Well ladi ***** da. Big deal.
- adamchristopher, on 06/25/2009, -2/+4This seems unnecessary. The ceremonies are ALWAYS over on time, I don't see how doubling the amount of introductions will help. Besides that, there will still only be one winner.
- jhails, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2They will probably hire James Cameron to broadcast the awards in 3D.
"I'm the king of the 3D world" - JuanBSU, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2Or you could change the channel.
- 42Vindictive, on 06/25/2009, -1/+3Lemme guess, you're the type who liked Live Free or Die Hard right?
- bghs2003, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2More mainstream films will be nominated, but it is likely to make the art films win more often. With 10 films, voters are more likely to have their first choice as an option. If voting is first past the post, than you will likely end up with artistic films that are loved by only 15-20% of the Hollywood elite winning over a film that is more widely liked, but does not provoke extreme adulation from any one sub group.
- slymi2005, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2I may be in the minority but I don't see any problem with this. Remember last years crop of Best Picture noms, Slumdog Millionaire, Curious Case of Benjamin Button, Milk, The Reader, and Frost/Nixon, if there had been 10 nominees they could have added The Dark Knight, The Wrestler, Doubt, Wall-E, Man on Wire or another film.
- ZeroCubed, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2You know, academy awards are great and all. But does a film's popularity and greatness really depend on a melded hunk of metal? I think not. Take a look at all the cult classics out there that never got recognition, and yet are part of our pop culture. The Goonies, The Princess Bride, Rocky Horror, 12 Monkeys, Akira, Tron. Do we like these movies any less because they didn't win an Oscar? No. It's very nice when a really good movie wins some Oscars. But many times we have also been disappointed with the "winners" - what's the point?
So yes, very nice that they decided to extend the categories from five to ten. But it's not really anything to celebrate, since at the end of the day an Oscar is a hunk of pretty molded metal. Only time will tell us the real winners. - Disc2day, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2Seriously??? Well if that's the case, put more independent films rather than crappy hollywood non-sense films
- Alabaster1234, on 06/25/2009, -1/+3You got me. Because unlike Fight Club there are a large group of fanboy's on the internet who are just in love with American Bea... oh wait.
For the record I wouldn't even put American Beauty in my top 20 movies so it's not blind love for it, but it definitely was more deserving of the Oscar than Fight Club that year. - xthpsgodx, on 06/25/2009, -0/+2Awesome, now even more people in Hollywood can masturbate into a mirror at once!
- FallenTurtles, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1I hated it!
(but I love the movie Doom far, FAR too much) :) - lunaticHIGH, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1This is surprisingly simple:
If 5 Movies can plaster "NOMINATED FOR BEST-PICTURE" on the face of their DVD, the film industry get's X profit.
If 10 movies can plaster "NOMINATED FOR BEST-PICTURE" the film industry gets great than X profit.
Back to work. Rant over. (scroll down someone said this already - too late though, might as well keep it). - slymi2005, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Slumdog Millionaire didn't have any big name actors.
- hasslinthehoff, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Don't you have to have at least 10 decent movies a year to do this? I'd say that's a stretch.
I say, whittle it down to three choices. Have the Academy judges pick the final three for each category, and let the public decide which one should get the award. More fun, more exciting and even more importantly, less time. - schrutefan, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1This opens up the possibility of 10 films that half the voters haven't seen being nominated instead of the usual 5.
- fumbduck, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1yup, you are one hundred percent correct. they say that a sticker like that guarantees an extra hundred grand in rentals and sometimes a re-release in theaters. total ploy.
- camaroz06, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Now people who follow the oscars and watch all the best nom. movies get to spend twice what they did before...awesome!!!
- centran, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Either way you look at it... it is obviously a money grab.
- Tarmogoyf, on 06/25/2009, -1/+2Let's make people more excited to get our awards that produce events with tanking ratings by making these awards less coveted by doubling supply.
- jsuther, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1Makes sense, the timeline as I see it ....
1. No one watches the Oscars
2. Advertisers pull out
3. Oscar show has to add more filler
4. Pretty soon they will just be show the last years worth of movie trailers with no commercial interruptions, wait a minute... - babyheadout, on 06/25/2009, -0/+1AMC Theaters does a Best Pictures screening at a great price at select theaters the day before the Oscars. It will hurt next year.
- crod23, on 08/19/2009, -0/+1Dude....you can find large groups of fanboys on the internet for anything...
-
Show 51 - 78 of 78 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is