This is regarding the decision by A.M.P.A.S. to increase the number of best picture nominees to from five to ten. In my view this is going to really
water down the value of the Best Picture Oscar. I'm having trouble
thinking of ten Oscar worthy movies each year, especially over the last
decade. I could give you ten worthy movies in 1939 or 1974. But since
2000, most movies winning the Best Picture prize would only get
technical awards back in the 1970s. There are a lot of reasons for
this but the primary one is that from a creative standpoint Hollywood
is bankrupt. (So is Broadway, but that's the Tony's problem and I
don't really care about them.)
It has been suggested that this
change in Academy policy is to get higher television ratings.Â
Increasing the number of competing movies will make the Oscar telecast
longer. Unless, of course acceptance speeches are whittled down to 15
seconds. Maybe they can dump the monologue. I know it's a staple of
television, but the Oscars aren't Conan O'Brien. Being a life long fan
of the movies, I've always held them in higher esteem.
With last
year's Oscar-cast being one of the lowest rated in history, many people
said that if the Academy would nominate more movies the general public
is interested in seeing, the ratings might go up. That may be true,
but I don't want the Academy nominating "The Hangover" for Best Picture
just to try and inflate the ratings. What needs to be done with the
Oscar telecast is is a trimming down of non-essential things to improve
the show's pacing. How's this for starters, eliminate the monologue
and all dance numbers. Then take the 5 best song nominees and condense
them into one four or five minute montage. Use the music from the
soundtrack and play it under clips from the movie. That alone will
save 12 to 15 minutes.
Continue reading "WATERED DOWN OSCAR?"