Genius – Best Picture Oscar Will Have 10 Nominees This Year

Well look at this… the Academy actually did something really smart. As it says in the title, this coming year the Best Picture category at the Oscars will have TEN nominees competing for the top prize instead of the traditional 5 films.

In the official press release the Academy said their reason for making the movie was to “get back to their roots” since 70 years ago the Oscars did indeed used to have 10 nominees. But let’s call a spade a spade. We all know this isn’t the REAL reason they’re making the change.

The real reasons they’re making this change can be broken down like this:

1) Increasing the number of films nominated will create a wider group of people who are interested in the outcome and hopefully increase the audience for the awards show. Think about it… how many Batman fans out there would have been more interested in the Oscars last year if The Dark Knight had actually been nominated? A LOT.

2) It’s a response to the hammering the Academy took from the main stream film going audience who were outraged that films like “The Dark Knight” and the #1 critically rated film of the year, “Wall-E” were not even nominated. This opens the door for them to include many of those “bubble” films.

3) It makes sense numbers wise. It’s all fine and well to have 5 nominees back in the 80’s when there were about 3000 movies produced each year… but now we have close to 10,000 $1 million+ budget movies made each year. It seems to make sense to broaden the nominee list just in response to the pure numbers.

I’d like to see how the Academy can DARE not nominate “UP” this year.

So what do you think of this move? Good or bad?

Comment with Facebook

123 thoughts on “Genius – Best Picture Oscar Will Have 10 Nominees This Year

  1. Why does everybody always say that Pixar movies should be nominated for Best Picture?
    I mean, I agree but it won’t happen.

    The Academy made a Best Animated Film category specifically for animated films.
    So what are they going to do? Nominate UP for Best Picture in the animated and general Picture category?
    If they were to nominate it in Picture and not in animated Picture then it completely shits on the animated category that they just created a few years ago.

    UP will not be nominated for Best Picture. Duh.

  2. hey john, about what you said: ‘but now we have close to 10,000 $1 million+ budget’
    i don´t know what a movie budget got to do with the awards they get…

  3. I’m half and half on this one.

    I mean it’s great if 10 really good movies do come out in 1 year, but what about the years that just barely see a handful of great movies get released or just less then 10? Will they just not make it 10 movies up for best picture on those years? If not then half of the nominees will be a waist of time.

    When was the last time you felt 10 movies in one year were at least worthy of a best picture nomination?

  4. God i wish this rule was made last year so i could have seen wall e and the dark knight there. however, i think having ten nominated is more a problem than an answer. yes, more deserving movies will be included that probably should have been but i believe that with the new set up, more movies that are not as deserving will be nominated. i thought the hangover was a hilarious comedy and i loved it but if this turns out to be a bad oscar season, do we really want it to be nominated. ten just doesn’t sound as prestigous and i think its a way to shut people up. also, it takes away some of the angst and anticipation that everyone has when the nominees are being discussed before there revieled. the way its going to be now, everyone will pretty much have a strong idea of who’s going to be nominated. there are serious pluses and negatives by my heart is leaning towards negative on this one. by the way, does anyone know how the other categories like writer and director will be handled.

  5. Whats the point the academy will use the same exact criteria. They will exclude comedy, animated films, thrillers, terror etc. and the best picture will go to a drama with a good hollywood end

    1. Who says they exclude films from specific genres? Who says they only give out best pictures to “good Hollywood endings” (and what’s wrong with a positive ending anyway?)

      Did ‘Crash’ have a ‘good Hollywood ending’?
      How about ‘Unforgiven’? ‘Million Dollar Baby’? ‘Platoon’?
      ‘The Departed’?

      As for genre:
      ‘Lord Of The Rings’ wasn’t a fantasy picture?
      Didn’t ‘Silence Of The Lambs’ win something back in the early 90’s?

    2. I think this will give a chance for other genres to be nominated. Annie Hall was a great comedy and it won best picture when there were only four other contenders. Perhaps we might see a movie such as “Funny People,” if it’s actually good, in the line-up next year.

  6. I’m all for this mainly because each year there’s so many movies that I feel should be nominated and aren’t. At the same time though this could lead to a lot of movies that don’t deserve to be nominated to get nominated, but all in all this will really make the the Oscars more interesting.

  7. It willo be nice to see more movies get recognition, but this will be a Hollywood tool to control who the winner is, the more choices, the more muddled and divided it will be, I don’t like this….Mark my words, as long as they do it this way you will see factions of the academy controlling who wins the big prize…

  8. I think you mistakenly assumed I meant YOU were defending the decision with that excuse, John, when I actually meant it to read: “For THE ACADEMY to defend it…”

    I can see how you’d make the mistake based on how I wrote it, so I won’t break your neck for the “ignorance” comment.

    Anyway, I have nothing to add to your three reasons because while they illustrate, to you, reasons it’s a good idea, they illustrate, to me, the reasons it’s a bad idea.

    This will simply dilute an already dubious award further. Some think this is an attempt for the Academy to hold onto relevance, when in fact, it strips them of any relevance they already had, and certainly, any sense of distinction they may have had left.

    1. “I think you mistakenly assumed I meant YOU were defending the decision with that excuse, John, when I actually meant it to read: “For THE ACADEMY to defend it…””

      Fair enough.

      It’s also fair enough that you don’t think it’s a good idea.

      But I think what dilutes the award is if they gave out 2 or 3. If they did what the Golden Globes do. I personally don’t think that adding to the number of nominees dilutes it at all as long as there remains only 1 winner.

      But I DO agree it’s an attempt on their part to hold on to relevance. I just think it’s a good idea for them to do so.

  9. Hey John,

    The reason why you will never see an animated movie get nominated for best picture is because there’s a award category for best animated picture. The likelihood of an animated movie getting nominated for best picture is the same for documentaries and short films. It will not happen. It’s that simple.

  10. I respect your innocence John, but the “real reason” they’re making this change can be broken down one way: MORE nominees equals MORE stars attending which equals MORE advertising which equals MORE money, period.


    1. More stars attending???? dude, trust me… they all line up to be at this thing. The Academy has no trouble getting “stars” to be at the show.

      And the REAL reasons I listed above are totally true. More interest from the public means more viewers… which means more money.

    2. The percentage of A-list stars is going to increase significantly with additional nominees. I believe this is an attempt to inject some new life into the Oscars which has had some pretty disappointing ratings. Although last year was a bit better than the year before, the ratings were still really bad. Not only will more stars come and more people will watch, but the studios have a HUGE advantage as well. Now an additional five movies can boast the title “best picture nominee.” These award races are really campaigns and the studios will get more money simply by labeling their film as an oscar nominee. It seems like everyone wins but I personally think that having ten nominees lessons the prestige of the award.

    3. They had no problem filling seats for as long as I recall. In addition, since the expansion is now to ten for best picture, with the exception of those actors and/or directors who help produce the film(s), how does that increase “stars” being present?

  11. I think this is a great move, and it would sweeten the pot if:

    1) The Best Animated film category is put to pasture. Otherwise, films like last year’s “Wall-E” will be stuck in that category.

    2) Either no performance of Best Song(s) or arrange the nominees to be performed at once (what can I say, the Slumdog songs and the Wall E song meshed so well, I almost thought it was all one tune!)

    3) With the exceptions of the In Memorium and the Honorary awards — no montages of past films please.

    4) One/two presenters for two/three awards like last time.

    5) Showing class and giving a tip of the hat to the nominees.


    As to what could be nominated for this year? I’m expecting hopes for Scorcese and Michael Mann, of course, and there’s the Nick Casavettes film that is opening soon (the one w/ Cameron Diaz)

    If the Oscars were held right now, here’s how I’d shape it up:

    The Soloist
    Star Trek
    Sunshine Cleaning

    Mickey Rourke, Killshot
    Jamie Foxx The Soloist
    Liam Neeson Taken (although the film was first released overseas the year previous)

    Jennifer Aniston He’s Just Not That into You
    Diane Lane Killshot
    Amy Adams Sunshine Cleaning

    Liev Schreiber Wolverine
    Karl Urban Star Trek
    Joseph Gordon-Levitt Killshot
    Jackie Earle Haley Watchmen
    Robert Downey Jr. The Soloist

    Emily Blunt Sunshine Cleaning
    Catherine Keener The Soloist

    BEST FX:
    Star Trek

    1. Dude no offense but on some of those you GOTTA be kidding me!!! Wolverine for best FX??? No!!!! WATCHMEN.

      Sunshine Cleaning will not get nominated. Keep in mind most of, if not ALL of the best pic noms come at the end of the year. This year it’s different though. Like 3 of them will probably be coming up

  12. a year late imho but when christopher nolan makes his third batman that outdoes the previous two i will be satisfied with the academy’s decision. fingers crossed people.

  13. Oh, and they can “dare” not nominate “Up” because there is still an animated film category (which, by the way, was on the chopping block until the last second). If the Pixar entry doesn’t make its way into the Best Picture line-up this year, you can bet the animated category will be gone last year.

    But whatever. I have a lot of trouble having a conversation with anyone who actually thinks this was a good idea for anyone other than…well…those who reap the benefits of Oscar advertising.

    1. Dude your ignorance is astounding. First of all, I never said I agreed with or defended the academy’s statement of it being for “going back to our roots”. Read my damn post. I said it was nonsense.

      And for the 3 reasons I listed above, it IS a great idea. I notice you didn’t actually address any of my actual arguments… just the one I never actually said. Fuck you’re frustrating as hell to try to talk to sometimes.

  14. Man, John, when you get it wrong, you REALLY get it wrong. This is the dumbest move the Academy has made yet. To defend it as “going back to our roots” is ignorant on the sole basis of quantity vs. quantity from then and now, but beyond that, this will merely give more and more dubious films an opportunity to slide into the mix. You ready for “The Hangover,” Best Picture nominee?

    What am I saying, of course you are…

    1. There is not even a chance that The Hangover will get nominated. The year is not over yet. There are still plenty of movies to come out.

  15. I agree, Watchmen was great but too many critics for it. Jackie Earle Haley I believe will get nominated yes. Jeffrey Dean Morgan too… I enjoyed his preformance a tad bit more.

    State Of Play? you think so? I don’t follow but ok lol

    1. What could you not love about State of Play? Sure it was boring in the middle, but Russell Crowe, man! Great story, nice twists, and its about the last days of the newspaper.

      Oh, and Rachel Mchottie (sighs sensually) oh, Lord I apologize for that forgive me.

    2. I read a review from The Hollywood Reporter calling Watchmen the first flop of 09, when it came out after Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li and other crap like Paul Blart and Confessions of a Shopaholic (seriously, who comes up with that?). I didn’t understand that at all.

      State of Play and UP definitely should get nominated.

  16. Well, honestly guys this was my 5 predictions…

    Public Enemies
    Shutter Island
    My Sister’s Keeper
    The Road

    Lately I’ve been thinking that Away We Go might get a nomination, especially now with 10. It feels like this year’s Juno. Even though Away We Go was ok, it’ll probably get a nom. The Soloist? Ehh….Idk….

    1. Definitely agree with Public Enemies and The Road (although the trailer was too much like the I am Legend trailer). I dunno about My Sister’s Keeper; doesn’t look that amazing. Never heard of Shutter Island or Amelia.

      Again, UP man. Where is it. I find your lack of faith disturbing.

    2. The Soloist and Watchmen have gotten really mixed reviews so I’m not sure about their Best Picture possibilities. Then again, they managed to somehow nominate The Reader in 2008 so I guess anything is possible.

    3. Away We Goes’s chances are stone dead at this point, the critics killed any momentum that thing had. The “Juno-nom” thing only works if a movie really picks up the zeitgeist around November/December

  17. If only they had done that LAST year, then Dark Knight, Gran Torino, and The Wrestler would’ve gotten nominated.

    Oh, well, at least there’s a bigger chance UP will get nominated for best picture.

    1. This could be the year, man. This could be the year.

      A film that won’t get nominated will be Watchmen, because as much as I loved it and thought it was Oscar-worthy, it won’t get nominated. Jackie Earle Haley may get a best actor nomination, but the film itself won’t.

      State of Play was amazing and should get nominated for best picture.

  18. Terrible idea. As it is there are times when the 5 nominees include a few movies that suck. And the fact that there are 3 times the movies being made now than there were 20-40 years ago doesn’t mean an increase in quality. As a matter of fact you can take a couple of years in the 70’s that had better movies than all of the 2000’s already. More movies=more trash for the most part. And animated movies should NEVER be nominated Best Picture. NEVER. 10 nominees dilutes the meaning (if there is one anymore) of Best Picture.

    1. Why should an animated film never be nominated? I thought the name of the category was “Best Picture”, not “Best Live Action Picture”.

      If an animated film is the best picture, then it should be nominated. No debate.

    2. Animated movies should never be nominated? What are you? 90 years old? Do you also think women should not vote? There was a time when some people thought photography can not be art, that only works of painters like Rembrandt, or Vermeer can be considered art. Now animated films are somehow inferior as a form of story telling? 2 of my top 10 movies of all time are animated. (one Pixar, one Ghibli) They are every bit as good as any live action film.

      Why can’t they just nominate as many films as they think worthy every year. This would be a great set up where in a shitty year when no film wins. (YOU ALL SUCK!!) That would get me back to caring about the oscars.

    3. Animated pictures are cartoons people. They’re nice and all-the kids love them-but even the best of them can’t match up to a comparable LIVE real movie. It’s all well and good that there are companies lifting the cartoon form to enhance the genre (like Pixar is any different than Disney back in the day) but “Up” is NOT a Best Picture, UP is a cute cartoon. (I love getting you guys worked up).

  19. This is great news. It will also help studios make more money with more exposure of nominated movies. I wonder if they will extend acting and directing to 10 as well?

  20. Best Picture Nominations –

    Public Enemies
    The Soloist
    In The Electric Mist
    Away We Go
    Shutter Island
    The Informant
    The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus

    This sounds like the movies that have Oscar potential. I think Up wont get a nomination for Best Picture because the story just doenst effect any realistic shape of this world. Up will win Best Animation , no doubt but i think this list will have the most nominations.

    1. “. I think Up wont get a nomination for Best Picture because the story just doenst effect any realistic shape of this world. “

      What? You mean like… Lord of the Rings?

    2. Up is a Animation movie , ahahah yhea Beauthy and the Beast also got a nomination kevin, yhea but after that it never happened again because the acadamy knew it was a bloody mistake to do. Lord of the Rings was just a little better than Up. I dont remember Frodo lifting his house up with freaking Balloons. Animation does not work for Best picture, just deal with it John.

    3. You’re right, they didn’t have houses flying with ballons… they just had ma;gic rings that turned you invisible, galss balls that let you see far off lands, magic fountains that could let you see the future, elves that live in trees, goblins that live in caves, pirate ghosts and cave trolls. You’re right… what was I thinking? Far more realistic.

    4. Yeah, UP will definitely get nominated and easily might win. Best movie of the year so far.

      I think Watchmen(though it’ll never happen) and State of Play should get nominated. That would be cool.


    no matter what year it has been there have always been lots of really good movies that never get looked at…with this action they will have a chance. just cause u have never heard of it or seen it doesnt mean it doesnt exist…there are lots of great films out there.

  22. I can barely think of ten films this year so far that I’d put up for Oscar nominations. Star Trek would be the new Dark Knight, and they’d all be labelled “anti-Pixarians” by me if Up wasn’t nominated.

    Seriously, only two I’ve seen evidence for Best Picture nominations. And though the Academy might let them be nominated, there is very little chance that they’d actually win.

    Does anybody go by the mantra of “The Best Picture is actually the Best Adapted/Original Screenplay award”? Seems a bit of bullshit to me sometimes, but I’m curious.

    1. And if I had said 6, or if I said 8, you’d have a similar response. “Well, why not 7? The was totally random.” It wasn’t random. I think 7 nominees is a good number. Better than 6 or 8 or 9 or 10. Fuck.

  23. and as great as UP is and pixar deserve oscars and noms and all the tea in china blah blah blah blah i personally hope this leads to something else that is long over due and more important than pixar getting some love and that is now maybe COMEDY will start getting a bit of oscar love and acknowledgement.

  24. The best thing is it now means they can find room for the films released early in the year that often get forgotten about because they were released outside of the oct-dec “awards” season…..

  25. as long as they still have a best animated category I don;t believe UP will get a nom in best picture even with ten films.

    It should but I just think the academy sees animated films differently

  26. I think this is pretty lame, it’s just going to water down the value of the nominations. They went from ten down to five in 1944 for good reasons, it made for better suspence come nomination time. Now they’re just going to give every “Prestige” picture that comes out a nod. And I doubt this is going to lead to a more diverse lineup, it’s probably just going to be good for the likes of Revolutionary Road, Doubt and Changeling, movies that shouldn’t rightfully make the cut but will. Expect a lot of filler nominations.

    I expect this kind of bullshit from The Golden Globes, but the Oscars are supposed to have a little more class.

    1. idk that there will be 10 films every year that will be of best picture quality.
      i would rather see the number left open and avoid having films that dont belong in the category being there just to fill spots.

  27. I personally gave up on the Academy Awards a long time ago. But this might peak my interest.

    It feels like all the time the only films being nominated are dramas. Last year, the completely typical and safe romance drama, Slumdog Millionaire, made a sweep at the Oscars. The only reason it deserved to win is because it was probably the best film nominated, not the best film of the year. I thought it was an abomination that far more ambitious and successful films such as WALL-E and The Dark Knight didn’t receive a nomination.

    I was one of the people who were extraordinarily furious that The Dark Knight or WALL-E weren’t nominated last year.

    Expanding the amount of nominations will be better for getting more representation for the wide variety of films released every year. But, this might make the distribution of votes more thinly spread. If this becomes the cae then a film only needs to receive slightly more than 10% of the vote in order to be considered the “Best Picture of the Year”.

    1. I strongly agree but at the same time it did win best Picture Heath Ledger won.

      He was the movie after seeing 6 times in imax and a couple in theaters and re-watching Batman Begins I liked Begins a lot better story wise.

      Ledger’s performance made up for the many flaws it had.

      And Casino Royale is so Underrated it deserved a nomination in 2006.

    2. I’ll agree and disagree. Ledger winning was a high point but his performance would have had no where near as much impact if it weren’t for the numerous elements of the films working together. The film as a whole was easily one of the best of 2008, and, for me, the best film of 2008 with WALL-E very close behind.

      Batman Begins plot and The Dark Knight plot are so radically different that I really can’t even compare them myself. But overall, I loved both.

      Also, found Casino Royale to be a great, but overrated film. I wouldn’t have minded it being nominated but it was too low-key and lacked the necessary push to land it into the territory of true greatness.

    3. I’ve seen the Dark Knight maybe more than I should have…

      I think saying one actor carried it is entirely unfair. I loved the camera work, music, and general feel of the movie.

      Yes, the bad guy was extremely good. The only real hole in that movie, I felt, was the two-face drift off at the very end that felt like a bolt-on.

      Everything up to the point when the Joker is beaten both morally and physically is pure gold.

      PS – Yes, I am a little fan-boy ish, but we’re talking “best film of the year” and I think that deserves a little love.

    4. I know you’re not bashing. I loved both Batman Begins and The Dark Knight and consider them to be the two greatest comic books movies in existence. But I feel that The Dark Knight is on a totally different level than Batman Begins. But those are just my personal feelings.

    5. Dark Knight-Best Movie of 08

      Wall-E-Amazing, the best pixar film until UP came out

      Casino Royale-brilliant (and I’m not even a Bond fan)

      I wouldn’t consider Slumdog Millionaire a drama. It was more a feel good movie.

      Even though I didn’t love it as much as everyone else, I think The Wrestler should’ve been at least nominated. But then again, so did The Dark Knight.

    6. I totally agree with Ezell, well said. Heath ledger was truly brilliant; it was a virtuoso performance. However I still think Batman Begins had a better story and was a better film overall. DK had many flaws but my biggest problem was with Harvey Dent. I just did not find it believable that he would transform into this evil villan purely based on his love dying. It is incredibly tragic to loose someone but I don’t think it would make one want to kill someone’s family. Just my two cents.

    7. “It is incredibly tragic to loose someone but I don’t think it would make one want to kill someone’s family”. That’s quite possibly one of the most ignorant things I’ve ever heard.

      Trust me, people have killed for much less.

    8. “That’s possibly one of the most ignorant things I have ever heard.” Your company must be quite brilliant, can I hang out with you guys? Im just playing. There are always exceptions but I don’t think someone like Harvey Dent, someone so honorable who has dedicated his energy into making Gotham a better a place for the people, would all the sudden throw that all away because he lost Rachel. It just is not believable to me. Anybody else have some thoughts on this? I’m trying to think of an analogy… This is not very good but take someone like President Obama (ok this will probably be a horrible, horrible analogy). I think most people consider him a good and honorable person. If his family was taken away from him, I don’t think he would suddenly turn on everyone and become a killer (Ya that was bad but I got nothing else). Usually there a more factors at play. Not to sound cliché, but maybe if Dent had this horrific childhood or had some other awful experiences in his lifetime I could understand how the loss of Rachel might bring out the demons in him and trigger this sudden change. But nothing like this was given. He was presented as the epitome of good so again, the transformation was not believable to me. Thoughts?

    9. You obviously missed all of the sublety in Dent’s character in the film. There are numerous indications throughout the film that Harvey is not entirely the noble person he was made out to be. There’s a reason that the cops in Gotham called him “Harvey Two-Face”. When Bruce is having dinner with Dent, Harvey makes a speech about Roman democracy. In that speech he justifies suspending democracy in order to institute control and security. That alone indicates that he secretly may not actually have trust in the system he is in charge of running. He also holds a gun to a mentally-disturbed man’s head, threatening to kill him. There are numerous subleties that show that Harvey isn’t completely the noble hero he appears to be. The characteristics of Two-Face are present in Harvey far before his actual transformation. There’s nothing at all unbelievable about the fact that he’d become a killer after facing such tragedy. As I have stated, he may have had it in him all along.

      Also, the Joker is very persuasive.

    10. I have to say that you have some really good points. However, I disagree with your interpretation of the Roman Democracy speech. Maybe I am just looking at the surface but I saw that as his explanation for justifying the presence of Batman. The suspension of democracy was to protect the people. Since violence and crime in Gotham have gotten so much worse, Dent can rationalize Batman’s actions. Even though Batman is essentially a vigilante, he is helping to protect Gotham. If things weren’t bad, he would not be tolerated. But I do like what you have to say about Dent holding the gun to the man’s head but overall I still don’t find his character arc to be believable. Although, you and so many others did so they must have done something right.

    11. Dent’s justification for the actions of Batman, in essence, undermines his belief in his own system. This only gives further credence to Dent being not so noble.

      But, I don’t think I can do any more convincing.

      Holy [email protected]#$%W^& – Michael Jackson is dead!

  28. I love it! The only thing that worries me is that one of my favorite events each year is the Best Picture Showcase at AMC. I wonder how they’ll deal with 10 best picture nominees instead of just 5…

  29. I’ve given up on the Oscars, when The Dark Knight and WALL-E don’t even get nominated despite being some of the best films in years…

    Slumdog was a very good film and maybe even deserved to win but I can’t even remember the other films that got nominated.

    1. No, it wasn’t nominated for Best Picture. Mickey Rourke was nominated for Best Actor and Marrisa Tomei was nominated for Best Supporting Actress.

  30. I don’t really like the move for a couple of reasons:

    1) Yes it may give more films the opportunity to be nominated that might have narrowly missed out in past years (TDK as an example), but it also means if there’s not enough films truly worthy of being nominated for Best Picture, it may just be a case of the Academy nominating films just because they have to fill the spots.

    2) Won’t it make the other categories pale a bit in comparison? And it would be kind of unfair – for example, the Best Picture category has 10 nominees, and yet the Best Director one will have only 5 as usual. That means five more director’s MOVIES will get nominated in those 5 now-added spots, but they themselves will be left out.

    I agree that it will attract more interest, and get more viewers (and it lines up with the fact that more and more movies are being made every year nowadays), but I still don’t like it.

  31. I don’t like this idea, i don’t think this would increase the likely hood of excellent films like Wall-E or Up winning the award, it would just make the best picture nominee a consolation prize. Now you’ll just see films nominated that the academy will still not accept as the best picture. If they won’t put in the best 5, why select the best 10?

Leave a Reply