The Oscars 2012

[Josh]

I'd be for it if I felt like smaller films that otherwise wouldn't get as much publicity were the ones being allowed in as a result. Instead, it seems to be making room for movies like Bridesmaids. Bridesmaids was a fun-ass movie and outside the norm, but it got a ton of publicity without the Oscars.

[GoGo Yubari]

Bridesmaids wasn't nominated for Best Picture.

Conversely, Winter's Bone was last year and there is no fucking way it would have made it in a list of five. Same goes for the Tree of Life too, so I don't think the evidence supports your logic.

[Josh]

Welp. Shows the sort of cognitive dissonance I'm capable of.

[RPS]

Well, look at the last three years and see what probably got have cut if it wasn't for the added 5 pictures.

2009: Up, A Serious Man, District 9, An Education are probably the safest bets to be excluded. I'd also probably think the Blind Side would be excluded.

2010: Toy Story 3, Winter's Bone, 127 Hours, The Kid's Are Alright probably would not have been nominated; I think those are probably the safer bets. My guess is that Inception probably would have been the other film left off, but it's arguable.

2011: War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Tree of Life, Midnight in Paris, I would say would be good bets to knock off. War Horse received a ton of noms in the technical categories, but I doubt it would get nominated for best picture.

I think that generally, opening up to 5 more pictures lets more lesser seen movies in, like a Serious Man, An Education, Winter's Bone, Tree of Life... but I think it also probably led to animated movies (Up and Toy Story) and bigger budget films to sneak in (Inception, War Horse).

Edited February 29, 2012 by RockPaperScissors

[arwrestling]

If it were up to me I would have cut...

2009 - Hurt Locker (yeah it won, but it sucked... I hated this film), The Blind Side (Good, but yeah), An Education (Only seen parts, meh), Inglorious Basterds (aight in pieces, but I was bored for the most part to be honnest; never was able to finish it), A Serious Man (again, seen parts... didn't like it much)

2010 - Winter's Bone, True Grit (Haven't seen them, no interest to); Toy Story 3 & Inception (loved both, but Best Picture... debatable); The Social Network (couldn't finish it, I was bored... might give it another go sometime) - I loved all the others

2011 - Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close, Midnight In Paris, Moneyball, War Horse

That being said, I like the "over a certain %" rule; why limit to just 5 if 7 are worthy, but why force yourself to 10 if only 8 deserve it? Saying between 5 - 10 works and allows for more options & less blatant snubs. Generally, the films that deserve the honor have a chance.

I kinda would like to see this rule expanded onto the acting categories as well for the same reasons. If 6 actors/actresses deserve it why not, but if only 8 deserve it why force 10 nominees? In all honnesty this would allow actual supporting characters a chance to be nominated and actual leads to be nominated in that category.

Jennifer Hudson was not a supporting role, she was a lead. A supporting role does just that, supports the leads. There is such thing as a Main Lead (main character of the film), and then Supporting or Sub Leads (still lead characters, but a little lesser than the main lead) and then there are the proper Supporting Characters.

Here's a few examples...

True Grit: Hailee Steinfeld was a lead character

Up In The Air: Anna Kendrick was a lead character (her character was intergral to the story, as much as Clooney); Vera Farmiga was rightfully a supporting character (she was supporting George Clooney's role)

Doubt: Amy Adams was a lead character (her character was intergral to the story, as much as Meryl Streep); Viola Davis was rightfully a supporting character (she was supporting Meryl Streep's role)

Babel: Rinko Kikuchi was a lead character (she was the lead of her portion of the film in every sense of the word); Adriana Barraza was rightfully a supporting character (she was supporting the story behind Brad Pitt & Cate Blanchett)

Chicago: Catherine Zeta-Jones was a lead character (as much a part of the story as Renee Zellweger); Queen Latifah was a supporting character

Silence of the Lambs: Anthony Hopkins was NOT a lead, he was a supporting character through and through. His character may have had a big presence in the film (being Hanibal) but that does not equate to being a lead.

I honnestly feel that there should be a % rule in place for acting categories. So for lead actor / actress a character must be in at least whatever percent of the film to qualify as a lead character. In the same respects, for a supporting character they must have appeared in nore more than whatever percent of the film to be considered a supporting character. I just find its a shame when you see someone like Jennifer Hudson being nominated as a supporting actor because her managemen team figured she has a better shot at winning that category; thats a spot that could have went to a supporting actor actually deserving of the award or nomination. Sorry about the rant...

Edited February 29, 2012 by arwrestling

[TKz]

Wow.

Just wow.

Seriously?

Hurt Locker cut but District 9 and AVATAR stick around? There's so much wrong with all that.

[arwrestling]

Yeah... Like I said I hated Hurt Locker. Neither Avatar or District 9 should have won, but as far as I'm concerned I enjoyed them much more than Hurt Locker.

[GoGo Yubari]

Well, look at the last three years and see what probably got have cut if it wasn't for the added 5 pictures.

2009: Up, A Serious Man, District 9, An Education are probably the safest bets to be excluded. I'd also probably think the Blind Side would be excluded.

2010: Toy Story 3, Winter's Bone, 127 Hours, The Kid's Are Alright probably would not have been nominated; I think those are probably the safer bets. My guess is that Inception probably would have been the other film left off, but it's arguable.

2011: War Horse, Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, Tree of Life, Midnight in Paris, I would say would be good bets to knock off. War Horse received a ton of noms in the technical categories, but I doubt it would get nominated for best picture.

I think that generally, opening up to 5 more pictures lets more lesser seen movies in, like a Serious Man, An Education, Winter's Bone, Tree of Life... but I think it also probably led to animated movies (Up and Toy Story) and bigger budget films to sneak in (Inception, War Horse).

I think Inception might have made it in, if just because I think part of why they bumped it up to ten nominees was the public's dismay at The Dark Knight getting snubbed. Basically, it really serves dual purposes; it allows some big box office smashes to get in so people will be less like "oh yeah, they only nominate movies that nobody's watched" and it allows small indies with cult followings to get in and get a boost to their box office/profile.

I agree with your four/five for 2009 and 2010. The Blind Side would probably have been the fifth movie cut because it wasn't nominated for Best Director and that's usually a decent measure of what the top five actually are, though I could have seen Inglourious Basterds missing out. Same deal with Inception, which probably would have had the exact same Oscars if it hadn't been nominated for Best Picture. No acting awards, no nod for Chris Nolan again, would have gotten the exact same "wait, what the fuck?" reaction that The Dark Knight got (and let's face it, if Heath Ledger hadn't died they would have snubbed him too).

For 2011, I'd bet on Moneyball getting cut for Midnight in Paris.