6) It takes away from the prestige of being nominated. It used to be "an honor just to be nominated" but now, with it being the only category with 10 nominees, I feel that it's become watered down. Any movie that got a lot of press, did well in the box office, and is made by the right people gets nominated.
5) This ties into the last one. Now it's even MORE political. I can gaurantee that famous and well recieved directors will have their film nominated just because of their name. Avatar was visually stunning BUT it wasnt an original story (see Dances with Wolves), the acting was mediocre at best, and the writing was cliche. BUT, it cost alot and Cameron made it, therefore it gets an Oscar nod. Garbage!
4) IT'S TOO FUCKING MANY!
3) Animated films already have a category. Either get rid of their category or dont let them be nominated for both. Hell, I'll compromise: Keep Best Animated Film but then don't allow a film to be nominated for "Best Picture". If Toy Story 3 gets a best picture nod then it can't get nominated for Best Animated Film. If you think about it, the fact that it's on Best Picture immediately puts it above any other animated film anyway. So isn't it kind of redundant to have it be in both categories? I mean, are they ever going to nominate an animated film for best picture then NOT have it win best animated??? Seriously, lets kill 2 birds with one stone and if an animated film get nominated for best picture, just acknowledge that its the best animated film.
2) The best picture nominee's intro takes twice as long. I know some people like to sit through the damn intros for each film but I just want to know two things, whose nominated and who won. The rest is just blowing smoke. And now we have to sit through it for twice as long. BALLS!
1) I understand why they claim to have expanded the nominee pool. One reason they gave was with the amount of indie films that are being made now, and the amount of films that are beig generated in general, it makes it difficult to only pick 5. This would make sense EXCEPT using this same theory shouldn't all the categories get expanded? Its a flawed point and just an excuse. Just because more films are made does NOT mean that more GOOD films are made.
Note: I (Matt) wrote this post prior to the nominee list coming out for this year. And I have to say...I'm impressed. It really really really really bugs me to say that. But I think they actually managed to find 10 worthy movies.
BUT, I still dont like it. I dont understand why they did it. It needs to go back to 5. Thoughts?
I issue you a challenge, if you could chop the current list down to 5 what would it your list look like?
The Kids are All Right
The King's Speech
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
In my opinion that list should read (in no particular order):
The King's Speech
The Social Network
Reason's for my cuts:
The Fighter - it has some tremendous character acting but it's nothing new and nothing great. It's a good sports movie but not a great picture. Without Christian Bale its barley above average.
The Kids Are All Right - well to be honest I havent seen it.
127 Hours - it only got nominated because its an unbelievable story, yet it's just an above average film.
Toy Story 3 - it will win for best animated picture. Now, I had a tough time deciding between this one and Winter's Bone BUT Winter's Bone doesn't get the chance to win Best Picture twice so Toy Story gets cut for cheating. See "reason 3" above.
True Grit - was a good Coen brothers film (best directors of our generation) but its not the writing, cinematography, directing, or producing that made this film a great picture....it was the acting. In fact I've never seen a movie where the acting trumped the movie itself. Since the acting was better then the movie, can you honestly claim that's its a Best Picture???
So whats your list???