Oh well, I think it serves a few purposes. Maybe Cinmike is right it's for stroking egos...but maybe it will also expose a few more really good movies to audiences.
I suspect it is also a decision to help "sell" more movies. After all people go to the theatre and rent the nominated movies more than other movies.
Lets hope it gets little known films and a wider variety of risk taking films out to the public...
Whereas Oscar nominations can draw box office, there's a certain logic in increasing the number of films on the shortlist. I'm guessing that ego-stroking takes a back seat to good old-fashioned commerce with respect to this decision.
This is how it was done in some of the earlier years of the Academy Awards so I don't see any problem with going back to the old way. In the 30's and 40's they used 10 nominees, so I don't believe this is just some ploy to stroke egos or to make more money. A lot of really great movies have to be excluded because of the limit. Maybe now a foreign film, cartoon, or god forbid a comedy can get nominated and have a chance. I say it's a good thing!
It doesn't matter if they are only going to pick one winner. I guess it helps more artist get the title Oscar Nominated Title. The more big votes split, leaves a better chance for the underdog
Most people don't know this but in addition to paying your annual dues to the academy which is about $5,000, each submission has an entrance fee that goes up in price depending on category. If your submission is nominated, you get a bill for that supposedly to pay for the statues and the awards dinner. So I think the additional nominees are a fundraiser. I don't think it has to do with ego, it as to do with money.
I dont see the purpose other than stroking some egos. You can still only pick one.
ReplyDeleteOh well, I think it serves a few purposes. Maybe Cinmike is right it's for stroking egos...but maybe it will also expose a few more really good movies to audiences.
ReplyDeleteI suspect it is also a decision to help "sell" more movies. After all people go to the theatre and rent the nominated movies more than other movies.
Lets hope it gets little known films and a wider variety of risk taking films out to the public...
I hope.
Whereas Oscar nominations can draw box office, there's a certain logic in increasing the number of films on the shortlist. I'm guessing that ego-stroking takes a back seat to good old-fashioned commerce with respect to this decision.
ReplyDeleteThis is how it was done in some of the earlier years of the Academy Awards so I don't see any problem with going back to the old way. In the 30's and 40's they used 10 nominees, so I don't believe this is just some ploy to stroke egos or to make more money. A lot of really great movies have to be excluded because of the limit. Maybe now a foreign film, cartoon, or god forbid a comedy can get nominated and have a chance. I say it's a good thing!
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter if they are only going to pick one winner. I guess it helps more artist get the title Oscar Nominated Title. The more big votes split, leaves a better chance for the underdog
ReplyDeleteI think it will "cheapen" the term "Oscar nominated" but will provide more competition and that's always a good thing.
ReplyDeleteMost people don't know this but in addition to paying your annual dues to the academy which is about $5,000, each submission has an entrance fee that goes up in price depending on category. If your submission is nominated, you get a bill for that supposedly to pay for the statues and the awards dinner. So I think the additional nominees are a fundraiser. I don't think it has to do with ego, it as to do with money.
ReplyDelete