Ten nominees

Variety:

There will be 10 best picture nominees starting with the 82nd Oscar ceremony, [scheduled] for March 7, at the Kodak Theater in Hollywood.

My feeling is that this will make room for two types of movies that usually get snubbed: the well-reviewed big action picture, and the too small art film. E.g., last year this new rule may've made room for Iron Man and Frozen River. I like that. On the other hand, it will make Best Picture trivia that much harder. (via aicn)


<<< 10th anniversary of Ágætis byrjun    In-depth article on Ricci v. DeStafano >>>
Tags:

This is a good move. The academy awards will get a lot more viewers this year because of it, more films will get recognition, more fun all around. The diversity of films in the other categories should be higher too. One thing you didn't mention is that it will benefit animated films too.

Last year I thought Wall-E wasn't really deserving of a nod, but this year I think Up should get one. Up charmed me and I have not liked the Pixar movies I have seen very much.

As Dana Stevens at Slate pointed out though, oh my how long the Oscar show is going to be.

Slater | Wed, 06/24/2009 - 6:09pm

I'm not so sure about animated films, as they will still suffer from having their own Best Animated Film category. (And hence I'm not even sure if they qualify for Best Picture.)

crazymonk | Wed, 06/24/2009 - 7:54pm

Yeah, I think they should be able to compete in both. But then there should also be other categories I suppose for comedies, dramas, actions, etc... that's one of the few reasons I like the golden globes-- they reward some comedies.

So I guess I have no idea why there's an animated category-- I guess the style and way its made are different.

The Oscars are pretty commercialized-- I think this will make films have to compete more readily for votes. It will lead to less predictability I think-- unless there's something that's an obvious winner.

Slater | Wed, 06/24/2009 - 8:48pm

this is a horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE idea. forget oscar pools for a minute (they're done) -- this will make the broadcast (already 2 hours too long) about 17 HOURS TOO LONG.

jbg. | Thu, 06/25/2009 - 1:47am

Why are pools done?

And why would this make the telecast that much longer? The Oscars are too long because of montages, Honorary Achievements, certain technical awards, and Saving Private Ryan interpretive dances. Last year, I don't even think they did the bit where someone talks about each BP nominee for two minutes.

Are the Golden Globes god-awfully long because they have 10 best picture nominees? (Split between Drama and Comedy/Musical.)

crazymonk | Thu, 06/25/2009 - 8:25am

You bring up a good point about the Golden Globes Marco... the reason the Oscars will be longer though is because they are much more self-important than the Golden Globes. At least that's what I think.

Slater | Thu, 06/25/2009 - 12:39pm

up CHARMED you, SLater? You are as much a masochist as my twisted, soulless boyfriend. I thought Up (aka Down) was the most horrific, emotionally manipulative, soul-crushing shit I have EVER been forced to sit through. It was like an unwelcome group therapy session listening to my friends bawl (except aforementioned soulless CM). Shudder. To those who have not seen it: RUN AWAY, FAR AWAY. Do not see this horror. Re-watch Schindler's list: it's a better movie, and less depressing.

flea | Thu, 06/25/2009 - 12:43pm

Wow, Flea. What got you so sad? The introduction was sad, but also a pretty beautiful portrayal of a marriage and growing old. It's rare that movies care to take on the ending of human life with such care and realism beyond cliches.
The rest of the movie bothered you too? Were you expecting to see Ice Age 3 or something?

If you want to talk about how overrated and unbearable Wall-E was, I'm with you on that one.

Slater | Thu, 06/25/2009 - 6:24pm

[Up spoilers] I'm with you, Slater, mostly. Although I did find it somewhat emotionally manipulative, I think they earned the emotion with realism. It wasn't just Flea -- everyone I saw the movie with was in tears (I love this line from Dana Steven's review: "Carl and Ellie grow up to marry and have a long, happy life together—all of which we see compressed into a dialogue-free montage that's less than five minutes long and elicits tears as efficiently as if a cloud of mace had been released into the theater."), and then continued to get emotional every time Carl's plight was referred to, with frustration vented at the filmmakers for milking it. I recognized what they were annoyed with, but I didn't find it quite as cruel as they did. And then when we had a discussion afterward about whether or not the movie was appropriate for children, I got a little testy because I see nothing wrong with celebrating a long fulfilling life, even if one dies before being able to witness talking dogs. I would hope people don't shield *good deaths* from children, let alone bad ones.

crazymonk | Thu, 06/25/2009 - 6:41pm

Yeah, that's how I felt. I was fighting back tears after that introduction segment. Alicia and I coincidentally went to see the movie on our 3 year anniversary, so that unquestionably colored the experience even more. We had decided to go see it after I was somewhat skeptical of seeing the movie in spanish (that was the only option). I hate dubbed movies with a passion, but I forgot that childrens' movies are always dubbed in Peru-- but in fact this makes the translation and voices much better. It was fine. I also as mentioned previously had a big dislike of the Pixar movies I had seen. Up was the only thing playing at the time we could go though.

Emotionally manipulative? I don't think so. My grandparents have been in an assisted care home for about 5 years now after a protracted battle to get them to leave their house. In the end, because they waited too long their health deteriorated far worse than it would have had they made the move to a lighter assisted care home sooner-- that in fact would have felt much more like a home. My great grandmother also was in a nursing home and we visited her for many years-- it was in Elberton, GA (a small city), and was a very sad place.

I don't call my grandparents enough, all 4 are still alive. One dad's parents are not really able to talk by the phone anymore sadly (they are the ones in the home).

It's rare that we want to confront this sad stage in life. I often wonder what it will be like for me when I get older. Will I be one of the lucky ones who is fit to live out their days in a place of choosing? Or will I get plucked into one of these nursing homes that can be like prison. I don't think that sadness is an emotion that if articulated properly is manipulative. For instance in Up, the scene after he finally lands his house was in my opinion one of the best-- the old man acted like a real person would. Instead of consoling the boy initially, he was self-centered and went in the house to mourn for his wife's loss again. It was one of the most poignant scenes I have witnessed in a long time-- in the end, getting the house in the right place was not anything like the character expected-- why should we be bothered by this nuance as viewers? And in a kids' movie for crying out loud!

I guess that explains much of the backstory for why I liked Up. I guess you could get depressed, but what's the alternative? As I said, movies that tell a story like this one are hard to find. I definitely felt like the movie was inspiring and brilliant-- but granted, if I were a kid I might be bothered by the beginning. The talking dogs and idea of flying in a house with balloons would probably make up for it I'm guessing.

But as you write Marco, maybe being "bothered" this way is better than oh say, the grandparents getting killed/dying in Spiderman. Or the fact that in many, many kids movies the parents are killed off or are deadbeats going through a divorce such that the kids need to be independent explorers and renegades and charge through the world on their own.
I'm starting to find this trend more bothersome now that I'm a parent.

That being said, Flea, I recognize that once we've seen a movie and think it's crap-- it usually remains that way.

Slater | Fri, 06/26/2009 - 7:56am

i didn't think it was crap. i just think the fact that this extended colloquy is a natural byproduct of this film means it was wildly mis-marketed. i just don't enjoy sad movies, like EVER, and i certainly don't choose to go see them with friends on a sat. night when i'm looking for a fun action movie about talking dogs SQUIRREL! which i adored and would have been a fun film were it not for the taint of death.

flea | Sun, 06/28/2009 - 8:33am

Can you knock a film for how it was marketed?

The Rodenator | Fri, 07/03/2009 - 8:06pm