Bio
I'm a single black woman living in the NYC area. I work in the media and love tennis, movies, television and pop culture. I get fired up about poli...
 
 
 
 

What’s Hot on BlogHer.com

The Academy Awards Try To Make Up For "The Dark Knight"

  • Share This Post
  • submit
  • 10
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

It took Batman to bring the Academy to its knees.  Next year the 82nd annual Academy Awards will have ten Best Picture Nominees.  You know whose fault that is?  Batman's.  Or rather last year's Batman movie, "The Dark Knight," starring Christian Bale and Academy Award winner Heath Ledger.  Because Academy voters weren't hip enough to nominate the very worthy "Dark Knight" for Best Picture instead of say that hideously overrated "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," the Academy's gone off the deep cinematic end and decided to have ten Best Picture nominees next year. 

Academy President Sid Ganis was quoted in the Academy's press release:

Having 10 Best Picture nominees is going to 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.  I can't wait to see what that list of ten looks like when the nominees are announced in February.

That means instead of just five movies with promotional campaigns that cost millions of dollars, there'll be ten.  Film fanatics who want to see all the Best Picture nominees in the month between the nominations on February 2nd and the awards on March 7th will have to hustle.  Late night talk shows will be inundated with twice the number of filmmakers and stars trying to plug their Oscar-bait.

But don't be fooled, dear movie buffs.   As Julia Boorstin of CNBC's Media Money says, the "Oscar Increase, About the Money, Not the Movies:"

Though this is a throwback to the 1940s, when the Academy often nominated ten films, this isn't at all about history and sentimentality. It's all about revenues and driving eyeballs to watch the event. Over the past few years ratings for the big event have dropped, which means less ad
revenue for ABC [DIS 22.70 0.29 (+1.29%) ], which broadcasts the event, and lower broadcast fees for the Academy. The goal here is to get a bigger, broader moviegoing audience interested in the event by including films they've seen. 

The last time a real blockbuster was nominated as Best Picture was "Titanic" and as Ms. Boorstin points out

It's no coincidence that 1998 when Titanic -- the biggest movie of all time-- won best picture, was the year the Oscars had the highest ratings ever.

The more people who are invested in the nominated movies, the higher the ratings for the Oscar telecast.   If the Academy keeps nominating movies that only five people have seen, only those five people and a couple of fashionistas are going to watch.  

"The Dark Knight" to date has made over 1 billion dollars worldwide and is number four on the all time worldwide box office list.  Can you imagine the ratings of this year's ABC Oscar telecast if "The Dark Knight" had been nominated as Best Picture?  They easily would have been through the roof.

So the Academy is thinking, not only will some blockbusters have the chance to get recognized with the newly minted five slots, but some comedies as well.  We all know how allergic the Academy is to comedies.  Even good comedies like, "Four Weddings and a Funeral," or "Austin Powers International Man Of Mystery" or "Thirteen Going On Thirty" or "Night at the Museum."

At first I ragged on the Academy like everyone else, saying this was a bad idea, but I've since changed my mind.  I just think ten nominees is extreme.  Six or eight would have been plenty, but I think they chose the number ten for the shock value alone.  Honestly, it's hard enough for them to pick five decent movies in some years, much less ten. 

Do we really want to see "Year One" nominated as Best Picture?  Or "Scary Movie 7?"  Or "Saw 6?" Okay, those last two I made up, but you get what I mean.

Meredith at Adverbial Warfare had the same thought:

Last weekend, we scanned the movie listings and there was not one single movie that we wanted to see, even at our independent/foreign movie house. We finally settled on Food, Inc., because at least we'd learn something. So, Hollywood, what's going to happen when you're churning out so many crap movies that you can't even muster 10 worthy flicks for the Academy's consideration, and then through a fluke split in the voting, The Hottie and the Nottie is walking away with the golden statue? 

She breaks down the ten nominations this way:

I predict that

  • 10
  • Sparkle (
    )
     

Comments

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest
Megan Smith 5 pts

It's true, the Academy doesn't run out and actively find the good films and nominate them.  A majority of the nominating process is understandably audience, critic and promotion driven.  To be fair, I understand how it might be a lot to expect Academy members who work in the industry to know about all the good films in the industry.

That's the same slam against Emmy voters and honestly, Oscar voters get it right more often than Emmy voters do, though they are getting better.  The Emmy nominations came out today ( http://www.blogher.com/primetime-emmy-nominations-... ), by the way. 

I don't remember hearing about the controversy about the voting over "Hoop Dreams" but I do remember hearing the documentary submission process was changed.   Let's hope there aren't any more than the usual promotional shenanigans going on at Oscar nominating time.

Megan

BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/Online Video ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/megan-smith )

Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/

InkAndPixelClub 5 pts

 I'll agree that the Academy has been doing better lately when it comes to nominating independent films, but I still feel like the Awards are less of a kingmaker and more a confirmation of what everyone else is already saying.  Many of the independent films that get nominations already have huge buzz and loads of critical acclaim behind them long before the Academy picks them out.  Heck, nearly everyone I know saw "Juno" and not everyone I know is big into independent movies.

Just to remind everyone, since it was fifteen years ago, the problem with "Hoop Dreams" wasn't so much that it didn't get nominated for Best Pciture (though it may well have deserved it) as that it wasn't even nominated for Best Documentary, despite making numerous critics' lists of the best films of the year, documentary or otherwise.  An investigation revealed some rather unsavory politics going on behind the curtain, including a campaign to actively prevent the film from being nominated.  The Academy has since made changes to the Best Doumentary nominating process, but who knows what other nasty secrets might still be lurking around the ballot boxes?

 Thank you for your kind words about my blog!

Sara

www.inkandpixelclub.com ( http://www.inkandpixelclub.com )

Megan Smith 5 pts

Hi Sara,

See, now this is the Academy's argument in a nutshell.  I think they would say if there had been ten nominations for the year "Hoop Dreams" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoop_Dreams ) came out, it would have received the Best Picture nomination it so richly deserved.  And it might have won.

I do however think the Academy hierarchy would disagree with you about how smaller films are being overlooked.  They would say, Best Picture nominations have been highly populated with smaller films recently--meaning lower budget films--like "Juno," "Frost/Nixon," "The Reader" and "Little Miss Sunshine."   Whereas films like "Dreamgirls" and the much discussed "The Dark Knight" were not.   And I'd have to agree with them.

As you say however, I'm not quite sure this is the way to go about including more films of all kinds, but I'm thinking it's worth a try.

By the way, loved your blog.  I'll definitely be keeping an eye on it.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/Online Video ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/megan-smith )

Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/

Megan Smith 5 pts

As you say, I had a tough time seeing the five nominated last year in addition to the extra movies I had to see because of the nominated performances.

And you just know some of those Academy voters haven't seen half the stuff they vote for.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/Online Video ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/megan-smith )

Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/

Liz Rizzo 5 pts

That's the real problem. I vote in the Spirit Awards, and I kill myself trying to watch all the films. It's near impossible.

I can't imagine most Academy voters even come close if they're currently working.

Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).

InkAndPixelClub 5 pts

I agree that there is the germ of a good idea in here somewhere.  I have long noticed that the Academy is wary of comedies and various other types of film that do not fit certain Academy qulifications which have little to do with the actual quality of a film and more to do with how "important" a film is.  I just think that expanding the number of Best Picture nominee slots to ten is quite possibly the worst way to go about correcting that problem.  I understand that the Academy probably likes being able to proclaim one film "the best" for that year, but I think splitting the category into "Best Comedy" and "Best Drama" like the Golden Globes does would work much better.  I think what we'll end up seeing is a slightly more civerse group of films being nominated, but the old historical drama standby still bringing home the little gold man.

 The point about expanding the Best Picture category but not the Best Director is a good one, and one that could be taken further.  If there are ten great movies per year, why not ten great actors?  Ten great actresses.  What about the supporting categories?  What about the people working behind the scenes?  Are there ten great foreign language films per year?  Or - in the categories near and dear to my own heart - why not nominate ten contenders Best Animated Feature or Best Animated Short?

 The films that get nominated for Best Picture now occupy a weird space.  They aren't gnerally blockbusters on the scale of "Dark Knight," but they are seldom totally unknown either.  Thanks to a lot of critical attention and studio support, they areusually films that do respectably at the box office.  My hope was that, at the very least, having ten Best Picture slots would encourage some of the Academy voters to actually see more films, particularly some smaller movies that they might not see otherwise because no one is actively encouraging them to do so.  So I'm dismayed to hear that the whole idea may well be to get bigger, more well known films nominated, rather than smaller, more obscure ones.  My fear is that this will just turn the Academy Awards into even more of an echo chamber, repeating year after year "The films that we said were good are good and the films that you went to see and liked already are good as well."

 Oh, and if the Academy still hasn't fixed the mess that caused the "Hoop Dreams" debacle, then forget it.  They could have 20 nominees in every category and the award still wouldn't mean a thing.

Sara

www.inkandpixelclub.com ( http://www.inkandpixelclub.com )

Megan Smith 5 pts

It's gonna be a whole, brave new world next year, come Oscar time.  Should be fun!

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/Online Video ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/megan-smith )

Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/

Nordette Adams 6 pts

Megan, this para made me laugh.

The more people who are invested in the nominated movies, the higher the ratings for the Oscar telecast.   If the Academy keeps nominating movies that only five people have seen, only those five people and a couple of fashionistas are going to watch.

I hope the extra five really are best, though, and not just popular. 

Nordette Adams ( http://www.bookotopia.com ) is a BlogHer CE ( http://www.blogher.com/haystackprofile/viewprofile... ) & you can find her other stuff through Her 411 ( http://her411.com ).

Megan Smith 5 pts

Oh yeah, when the controversy hits the fan because that one woman or minority wasn't nominated for director or writer and their picture was nominated for Best Picture, that's when the writer and director nominations will equal the Best Picture nominations.  Whatever the number!

And as you say, here's hoping for some diversity.

Megan
BlogHer Contributing Editor, TV/Online Video ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/megan-smith )

Megan's Minute ( http://www.megansminute.com/

Liz Rizzo 5 pts

Will they be able to find NINE long-ass movies full of white men and then the customary ONE remotely out of the box choice.

Or will there actually be some diversity. (My fingers are crossed.)

It's also going to be amusing when at least one of the ten is directed by a woman, but she totally doesn't get a best director nomination, but instead, gets a best screenplay nomination.

;)

I couldn't care less about the financial aspect. If there's diversity *and* the studios make tons of money, it's win win in my book. :)

Liz Rizzo ( http://blogher.org/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ).