Wait, What? We're Getting 10 Best Picture Nominees!

Wow. They've always talked about spicing up the show for the sake of ratings, but I thought Hugh Jackman was as far as they'd get.

Academy president Sid Ganis announced this morning that the field of Best Picture nominees will expand to ten nominees this year instead of the traditional five. Ten!

(My first thought? That post I wrote about how Up won't get a Best Picture nomination is now irrelevant and most likely incorrect.)

From the official press release:

“After more than six decades, the Academy is returning to some of its earlier roots, when a wider field competed for the top award of the year,” said Ganis. “The final outcome, of course, will be the same – one Best Picture winner – but the race to the finish line will feature 10, not just five, great movies from 2009.”

“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,” commented Ganis. “I can’t wait to see what that list of ten looks like when the nominees are announced in February.”

So is this a cynical attempt to right the wrong of not nominating The Dark Knight last year? Well, since I still consider that the most tone-deaf move the Academy has made in recent memory, I don't think there'd be anything wrong with that. Overall I think it's a smart move for the following reasons:

1. It's actually a big change. This shows that the Academy's not afraid to shake things up in a meaningful way.

2. Movies you and I like will actually (probably) make the list. It wasn't just The Dark Knight. We all have films we wish would make it every year -- films with lots of supporters that might've made the list if the list had been bigger. I'm thinking edgier movies like A History of Violence or Into the Wild.

3. It'll help more films at the box office. Best Picture nominees always get box office boosts, and though those boosts have been smaller in recent years, that's probably due more to the limited box office potential of those movies in the first place. (The Reader was never, ever going to hit $100 million.) More movies on the list means more people will be going to see them.

4. It'll help ratings, too. The Academy shot themselves in the foot last year (and basically every year since Lord of the Rings won) by ignoring the movies that people actually saw. Now that they have the wiggle room to include more populist titles, people might actually...care. Sweet!

Recent Entries:
· The Crowded Animated Feature Problem
· 'An Education' Heats Up
· Roman Polanski's Arrest Makes Everyone Go Insane

[ READER COMMENTS ]

Add your comments...

We kindly ask that you keep your comments relevant to this blog entry. Abusive or inappropriate comments or comments that are specifically promotional in nature may be removed.

Your Name: (required)

Your Email Address: (required, will be kept private)

Your Website's URL: (optional)

Would you like us to remember your info for next time?
YesNo

Your Comments: