I don't care about the 10 nominees as much as I care about the motivation for the change, this change was made essentially for a ratings play. They are essentially admitting that they would rather sacrifice the prestige of the award for ratings, which further diminishes the awards and the consistency that they've taken a long time to establish.

They may as well allow the public to vote on an award now or break some of the other "taboos".

Yeah, this was obviously after last year, which was a godawful joke.

So how many years until Nolan's Director or Picture nomination?

They should just have created a new category, something like "Honorary Best Picture" and have the nominees be past nominated movies that have stood the test of time.

10 nominees, 4 from the Weinsteins and 3 from Dreamworks....

I dunno, would you honestly say that you'd be equally as impressed by the significance of an Up nomination this year as you would have been by a nomination for Wall-E last year?

Says you? Not everyone thinks the same way as you.

I support the move to 10, for the Oscars to maintain important it needed something like this. This has happened before, get over it.

they're sick of the shit they got for not nominating TDK; now theyll never have such a problem.

This kinda solidifies the Oscars being a joke.

Very interesting. Definitely done for the ratings. Pretty simple really - they'll nominate the 5 usuals + 5 others where they can include some well reviewed blockbusters. Shouldnt change who wins though.

It will be more fun for this year atleast but it does devalue the nominations a little (not the win).

This is actually a rumor going around right now.

by the way...this all seems quite fitting with the Academy's Hollywood's Greatest Year celebration festival thing they've been doing this summer in LA and NYC (and how I met the man, the myth, the Robert Osborne), screening all 10 of 1939 BP nominees at the Academy theaters.

One thing is for sure, they're going to have to cut a few categories from the broadcast. I'm guessing Short Film, Short Animated Film, and Short Documentary. Sound Editing and Mixing are probably on the chopping block as well.

Also, if Up somehow isn't nominated this year (unlikely), I think Best Animated Feature is a goner next year.

I'm amazed they were able to keep this under wraps (we did hear about Hugh's hosting ahead of time). And apparently AMPAS president Ganis has come out and said TDK was one of the factors for the change. Duh!

I'm still not 100% sure this is great news for popular films. If this change was in effect last year, Doubt with its massive acting nom tally would have probably been the #6 film over TDK and WALL-E.

First and foremeost, I think we'll see more musicals and comedies nominated before true great genre films (I doubt Children of Men would have made the cut). Look at the yearly Globe noms for Musical/Comedy and pluck 2 films out. Nancy Meyer's film now has a shot, Nora Ephron's film now has a shot. Suddenly Nine may not be the only musical nominated.

I guess what I'm saying is I think we'll see more middle ground films nominated that have no shot at winning BP, versus having some sort of wide open race with great films from a cross-section of genres vying for Best Picture (Animated! Documentary! Action/Adventure! Foreign Language! Sci-Fi!). As great as it will be to see Funny People nominated, at best it's only getting 2 noms (Picture, Screenplay). 2 NOMS! Remember how everyone was pissy over Iwo Jima's 1 win/3 noms.

And don't forget, the Oscars are being pushed back 2 weeks because of the Olympics. Prepare for an onslaught of mega campaigning.

Iwo Jima had four nominations.

You guys should enjoy this change. More cannon fodder! Haha.

Why would they have to cut down the broadcast?

Clearly the extra 30 minutes it takes to read out the 10 nom's.

Don't forget they do little shows for every movie nominated.

Actually the Oscars mean very little either way.
Firstly, I can't call myself a film snob but I'm sure all of you've seen movies in limited release that were much better than the eventual 5 nominated.
In effect, the Oscars have only nominated those films that get enough support to elevate a limited release to a wide one of all the Oscar bait movies etc.
It's never been a true reflection and can never be. I guess you can say that it's the best alternative option so it'll stay.
Anyway having 10 does diminish the nominations. A smaller bump would've been better.
Still no way Star Trek gets nominated.

It's important to consider that this forum's general viewpoint is especially narrow. It is a function of the internet.

If you look at a list of critic's top ten lists you will usually (combined) see some form of all 5 of the nominated movies. Throw exceptions at that all you want, there are some but yeah.

As with any voting process, it boils down to politics, money (studio support), and a general mix of the pictures good enough to find general concensus without alienating people, which is why the 5 films are usually quite generic and predictable.

This is crap

Oscars sold out

As much as I would've liked The Dark Knight and King Kong to be best picture nominees (King Kong I'm sure was easily in positions 6-10 considering the number of awards it won on the night), this change is just stupid and a cheap way to get ratings.

we learn a bit more how the change happened

http://goldderby.latimes.com/awards_gol ... ticle.html



I'm shocked that they didn't know there were 10 nominees previously. What idiots.

First of all, Gone With The Wind was locked that year.

Second of all, these same people did the nominations in 2009, 2007 and 2006.