Pete Hammond certainly thinks so in his article here. I held off a few days on posting this, but it's got some real traction, so I figure I'll let you guys and gals chime in on the situation. If the article holds water (and I'm not 100% convinced that it does), then besides the movies that EVERYONE knows of, the smaller titles that in other years would have no chance certainly now have a chance, and perhaps a larger one than we realize. Here's a little piece of the article that sort of sums up his point:-However, as the 5 p.m. Saturday deadline for turning in ballots listing those 10 choices looms for voters, there are a remarkable number of academy members who have yet to make up their minds and actually send them in to the PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants.-
-Do you think this is a situation that will make for some interesting nominations come February 2nd? If so, which?
Posts
I think coming up with 10 is very difficult for people. That is why there should not be a set maximum number of nominees; how about instead 10 you go with at least five no more than ten. If you can look at the numbers and see that 7 movies got a substantial amount of votes and movies that would fill the other three spot didn't, just go with 7. If next year that is 9 go with that. Maybe I am in the minority, but I would much rather have 5 nominees and have films left out, then have 10 and see bad movies get in.
ReplyDeleteAs for who will benefit, that's tough. It could be the smaller films, but if people aren't watching the screeners then I don't think so. I am guessing more mainstream movies like The Hangover or The Blind Side would benefit because more people have seen them. Or maybe it becomes a popularity contest where films get nominated because of the names attached (Its Complicated, The Lovely Bones).
The films I'd throw out to keep an eye on are (500) Days of Summer, The Messenger, Crazy Heart, A Single Man, and The Cove.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say any will make it, just potential beneficiaries...
We certainly shall see. I stand by what I've been saying since Day 1, that we can't judge whether 10 is good or bad until we see which 10 make it. If it's more of the same, then it's silly. If there's a flick or two that's really cool to see on the list, then it will be a good thing. We'll know soon enough...
ReplyDeleteWhat about District 9? Though mainstream, it is ambitious enough to be deserving.
ReplyDeleteI also root for it within the Adapted Screenplay category. Neill Blomkamp & Terri Tatchell did a fair translation of the political mess that was District 6.
But hey, competition in this category is stiff with Campion, Reitman,the Cohens etc...
omit Cohens* I forgot they are in "origina" not "adapted."
ReplyDeleteDistrict 9 isn't the under the radar type film. It's actually being predicted by a number of people (myself included) and is working with about a 50/50 shot to get in. Voters aren't struggling with that type of film. It's the smaller ones that are benefiting...
ReplyDeleteahh
ReplyDeleteKatelyn,I completely agree. In a year like 1999 or 2007, ten seems completely justified. This year I can't say that's so, and if you look back to the past years in the 1980's and early 90's, that would have been atrocious.
ReplyDeleteI'd love to see something similar to the baseball hall of fame where a film needs to get over a certain percentage of votes to get in. How about voters each choose 10 films and each feature to get more than 50 or 60% of the total number of voters gets on. If people are unanimously behind 10 pictures, then we get 10, if not, likely there will be many fewer, leaving only the most deserving. It's been working well for baseball, why not Oscar?