Unbelievable. Just what the Academy needed to do to stir the buzz. Now with close to 400 million to date, I won't be surprised to see a best pic Oscar Nomination for 'Transformers 2'.

R.I.P., Oscar tradition and honorability

I understand why AMPAS is doing this BUT 10 Best Pic nominees??? I think its ludicrous. There will still be 5 Best Director nominees and the films they represent are the 5 real Best Pic nominees. I'm sorry but Star Trek, New Moon, etc DO NOT EVEN DESERVE CONSISDERATION. For higher rating, the studios need to release mainstream appealing movies.

So from here on out its not worth paying attention to the 10 nominees. Just follow Best Director.

To be one of five nominees is a prestigious honor. To be one of 10 won't be. Some years it's difficult to even find 5 films, and now we have to have 10?
Yes, 1939 was an exceptional year, but when was the last time we had a year like that? Oh, yes, it was 1939.
Why not check back and find out why 10 films was changed to 5 in 1944. There had to be a reason. And now we want to change a 65 year old tradition? Why? It certainly isn't because better movies are being made today. I'm sure it's got to do with money, ratings, and more money. That nomination will certainly draw larger audiences in the theatres.

As a huge film junkie I am pleased with this news. Come December there will be too many films jostling to get nominated and sci-fi and animated films always get the boot. Wall-E was worthy last year and Star Trek is worth this year. This is good news becuase it will bring more recognizable films to the table. I love my indie films but that doesn't mean the more broader appealling films aren't ever worthy. This will make it more fun, and less predictable!

You guys are completely wrong, this will make the category even more competitive because more films that would never before have stood a chance at a nomination will be throwing their names into the fold and fighting for a nod. Theres never been any complaining when critics groups put out a top ten and then announce a winner, just think of it the same way.
These ten films are the ten best of the year according to this group the Oscars, and then the members of this group will vote for what they believe to be the best. I guarantee you that with this rule in place, votes will be split and there will be suprising winners as a result. With more possobilities to chose from, the likelyhood that Academy members will vote on their own personal favorite will skyrocket which is a good thing, rather than have members vote on the more popular movie when their favorite is not a choice on the ballot. I guarrantee that had this been in place last year with say The Dark Knight, Wall-e, The Wrestler, Doubt and Gran Torino as the other five, Slumdog Millionaire would not have been as much of a sure thing to win, especially since the older members could have gotten behind Gran Torino, while the Actors may have put their weight behind The Wrestler and all other groups could have came behind Wall-e or The Dark Knight.
With 10 nominees in place, voters would probably be more inclined to vote based on their own oppinion rather than succumb to a Slumdog like sheep mentality. And by doing this, the odds of a better movie or a more unique film winning would be exponentially greater.
Over at my blog The Oscar Hut, the first part of my State of The Race: Best Picture 2009 article is up detailing in alphabetical order the ten movies I think will be nominated, from Avatar to Up. Along with this article there are polls, reviews, predictions, site links and much more. So come check it out and let me know what you think wheter it be a sentence or a three page e-mail positive or negative, whatever it may be, only at The Oscar Hut

www.theoscarhut.blogspot.com
tjpratt@bellsouth.net

I might not be the target demographic, but I don't find ten movies I even want to see in most years.

Talk about devaluing something! A PR solution to bigger ratings. A disgrace to all those who have actually been a part of "nominated" films. A move that will make a mockery of the "artistic" claims of the members. And, yes, why were the members not polled? A few of the "insiders" decided for the thousands who actually make up the Academy. Oh. I forgot - the president is a PR guy not a director or writer or actor. And the "Board"? It's made up of a few people chosen in a ludicrous manner. I hope the members raise hell.

oh boo hoo. Why is everyone complaining?

I LOOOOOOVE this decision. Now films like Up or Star Trek which are GREAT movies can actually be nominated for an award they deserve to be nominated for. This decision is an attack on the snobs, and thank god they did it!

When does Mr. Ganis' tenure at the Academy end?

This is a wonderful thing!!! The Oscars have always seemed to short-sighted to me; it’s like The Academy forgets that there were films released earlier in the year. I always hated the fact that only films released at the end of the year ever get nominated for awards and that studios hold up on releasing films until the “final quarter” in hopes that their film may be considered at Oscar time. Hopefully, many of the fantastic films that are released in January-June will have a fighting chance to win an Oscar. Bravo!

Boy...talk about knee jerk reaction. There are a couple of the "bad move" comments I agree with, but I noticed no one mentioned that this may allow some good films that might not make the top five by a point or two to have a chance at winning the award.

Look at the 1939 list. (IMHO, the best film year ever)...which five would you delete from the list?

Why not wait and see how this plays out?

What an idiotic decision. Wee all know the only reason is to lure more people into watching the telecast. If this decision had been made a year ago, surely more people would've watched the Oscar telecast had The Dark Knight been nominated. But at what cost? What's next?

What about a year in which there aren't 10 good films? It could - and does - happen.