Would FOTR or TT have won the best picture Oscar had there been 10 rather than 5 nominees?

N.E. Brigand

N.E. Brigand

Half-elven
Would ROTK have lost?

The (American) Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has announced that the number of Best Picture nominees will be increased from five to ten, returning to the practice of the 1930s and 1940s (when Hollywood produced more films than it does now). What difference do you think it would have made for the three installments of LOTR if this change had been made in 2001?

For reference, here are the nominees and a links to lists of film for those years:

2001 nominees
A Beautiful Mind
Gosford Park
In the Bedroom
The Fellowship of the Ring
Moulin Rouge!
(Other Films of 2001)

2002 nominees
Chicago
Gangs of New York
The Hours
The Two Towers
The Pianist
(Other Films of 2002)

2003 nominees
The Return of the King
Lost in Translation
Master and Commander
Mystic River
Seabiscuit
(Other Films of 2003)
 
I know that the members of the Academy vote to choose the winners, but who selects the nominees? Whoever they are, are they perhaps taking too high-brow an attitude, so that they end up selecting "worthy" films, or films that seem to have been made for the Oscars, rather than the ones people really enjoyed that year?

I seem to recall that Wall-E and The Dark Knight came out over the summer, rather than closer to the end of the year where the "Oscar-candidate" films tend to be clustered. Is that true, and does the timing matter as much as is sometimes thought?

I read somewhere that Peter Jackson's new film, The Lovely Bones, was ready to be released this summer, but the studio decided to hold it back for the awards season. Maybe that strategy won't be so important this year, if there are 10 nominees.

I suppose the best bet for the three LotR films would have been if there was a phone-in vote by the TV audience, like in a reality show. I have a feeling all three would have won that way! (And that system would probably save the studios a lot of time and money because they wouldn't have to schmooze the members of the Academy for months beforehand ... which presumably is why it will never happen!)
 
This would be the group that ignores most foreign-language and independent films and has never nominated a documentary? Too middlebrow, I would say.

In answer to your musing: nominees for best picture are selected by the full membership of the Academy, while nominees for other categories are selected by peers in that field: actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors, etc.

As for release time, others have agreed with you that too many of the nominees are fall and winter releases, fresh in the voters' memories. Fifteen years ago or more, Siskel and Ebert proposed that there be two rounds of nominating, once in July and once in January.
 
This would be the group that ignores most foreign-language and independent films and has never nominated a documentary? Too middlebrow, I would say.
Click to expand...

I see films that have a sort of pretentiousness and worthiness getting votes each year - a kind of ersatz "highbrowness" (for want of a better word!). I agree that they never seem to go for anything difficult or outside the American mainstream. Slumdog Millionnaire was a bit of an outsider in that regard, I guess. But it's probably one of Danny Boyle's most accessible, internationally-flavoured films.

I'm surprised that a documentary has never been nominated. I thought one of Michael Moore's efforts would have made the list. Or An Inconvenient Truth. Or March of the Penguins. I suppose the problem is that (like foreign film), there's a separate category for documentaries, so they tend to get relegated to that ghetto.

...nominees for best picture are selected by the full membership of the Academy, while nominees for other categories are selected by peers in that field: actors nominate actors, directors nominate directors, etc.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that information. I had a feeling that the nominees were also chosen by the Academy, but I didn't know the details. In that case, you have to wonder whether having 10 nominees is going to make much difference, since it's still just the Academy making the selection. Who chooses Best Picture, by the way? Pictures don't have peers, after all...

[crazy]
 
Or perhaps: arty rather than artful.

Who chooses Best Picture, by the way? Pictures don't have peers, after all...
Click to expand...
While nominees are selected by specific subsets of the Academy, the winners in most categories, including picture, director, actor, score, effects, etc., are voted on by the full membership. However, I believe members must attend screenings of short films and documentaries to vote in those categories.
 
Only 60% of the past best picture winners are on totally or partial American themes--40% are set in locales other than the USA--I don't call that overrepresented--I call that UNDER-represented!! I think the Oscars should take a cue from the BAFTAs--one best pic on American themes and one best pic from the rest!!
 
By this I mean that ROTK's Best Picture award, as well as its sweep through so many other award categories, was a sort of a collective recognition by the Academy of what Jackson and company accomplished with the trilogy as a whole...

I think it took three years and three films for there to be enough momentum for the Academy to see a fantasy film as being worthy of award-winning status...

So even if FOTR or TTT were nominated in the prior years, I suspect there would not have been enough votes and support until ROTK's year.

IMHO, of course...
 
Does Casablanca count in that list as "not American" themed, just because it is set in a "locale other than the USA"? I would suggest that films that feature Americans in a foreign setting are essentially American. So are Musicals, no matter where they're set, if they're made by American producers in the American film musical style.

Anyway, here's my best guess at where your statistics ought to be. I think it's more like 70% than 60%. And frankly, I like a lot of those "foreign" Best Pictures for their quintessential "Hollywood" style.


Wings: 1928 (1st) -- maybe (Americans abroad)
Broadway Melody, The : 1929 (2nd) -- yes
All Quiet on the Western Front : 1930 (3rd) -- No
Cimarron : 1931 (4th) -- yes
Grand Hotel : 1932 (5th) -- no
Cavalcade : 1933 (6th) -- no
It Happened One Night : 1934 (7th) -- Yes
Mutiny on the Bounty : 1935 (8th) -- No
Great Ziegfeld, The : 1936 (9th) -- Yes
Life of Émile Zola, The : 1937 (10th) -- No
You Can't Take It With You : 1938 (11th) -- Yes
Gone with the Wind Gone with the Wind: 1939 (12th) -- Yes
Rebecca: 1940 (13th) -- No
How Green Was My Valley : 1941 (14th) -- No
Mrs. Miniver : 1942 (15th) -- no
Casablanca: 1943 (16th) -- maybe (Americans abroad)
Going My Way : 1944 (17th) -- yes
The Lost Weekend : 1945 (18th) -- yes
The Best Years of Our Lives : 1946 (19th) -- yes
Gentleman's Agreement : 1947 (20th) -- yes
Hamlet (1948): 1948 (21st) -- no
All the King's Men : 1949 (22nd) -- yes
All about Eve : 1950 (23rd) -- yes
An American in Paris : 1951 (24th) -- maybe (Americans abroad)
The Greatest Show on Earth : 1952 (25th) -- yes
From Here to Eternity : 1953 (26th) -- yes
On the Waterfront : 1954 (27th) -- yes
Marty : 1955 (28th) -- yes
Around the World in 80 Days: 1956 (29th) -- no
The Bridge on the River Kwai: 1957 (30th) -- no
Gigi: 1958 (31st) -- maybe (Musical in foreign setting)
Ben-Hur : 1959 (32nd) -- no
The Apartment : 1960 (33rd) -- yes
West Side Story : 1961 (34th) -- yes
Lawrence of Arabia : 1962 (35th) -- no
Tom Jones : 1963 (36th) -- no
My Fair Lady : 1964 (37th) -- maybe (musical in foreign setting)
The Sound of Music: 1965 (38th) -- maybe (musical in foreign setting)
A Man for All Seasons : 1966 (39th) -- no
In the Heat of the Night : 1967 (40th) -- yes
Oliver! : 1968 (41st) -- maybe (musical in foreign setting)
Midnight Cowboy : 1969 (42nd) -- yes
Patton: 1970 (43rd) -- yes
The French Connection : 1971 (44th) -- yes
The Godfather: 1972 (45th) -- yes
The Sting : 1973 (46th) -- yes
The Godfather Part II: 1974 (47th) -- yes
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest: 1975 (48th) -- yes
Rocky : 1976 (49th) -- yes
Annie Hall : 1977 (50th) -- yes
The Deer Hunter: 1978 (51st) -- yes
Kramer vs. Kramer: 1979 (52nd) -- yes
Ordinary People: 1980 (53rd) -- yes
Chariots of Fire: 1981 (54th) -- no
Gandhi: 1982 (55th) -- no
Terms of Endearment : 1983 (56th) -- yes
Amadeus: 1984 (57th) -- no
Out of Africa: 1985 (58th) -- maybe (Americans abroad)
Platoon: 1986 (59th) -- yes
The Last Emperor : 1987 (60th) -- no
Rain Man: 1988 (61st) -- yes
Driving Miss Daisy : 1989 (62nd) -- yes
Dances With Wolves: 1990 (63rd) -- yes
The Silence of the Lambs: 1991 (64th) -- yes
Unforgiven: 1992 (65th) -- yes
Schindler's List: 1993 (66th) -- no
Forrest Gump: 1994 (67th) -- yes
Braveheart: 1995 (68th) -- no
The English Patient: 1996 (69th) -- no
Titanic (1997): 1997 (70th) -- maybe (Americans abroad)
Shakespeare in Love: 1998 (71st) -- no
American Beauty: 1999 (72nd) -- yes
Gladiator: 2000 (73rd) -- no
A Beautiful Mind: 2001 (74th) -- yes
Chicago: 2002 (75th) -- yes
The Lord of The Rings: The Return of The King: 2003 (76th) -- no
Million Dollar Baby: 2004 (77th) -- yes
Crash: 2005 (78th) -- yes
The Departed: 2006 (79th) -- yes
No Country for Old Men: 2007 (80th) -- yes
Slumdog Millionaire : 2008 (81th) -- no


American: 46 movies, 57%
American at heart: 9 movies, 11%
'UnAmerican': 26 movies, 32%
 
Twelve American movies in a row (fourteen, if we count American-at-heart)!
Where these the heyday of the American film industry, or of American cultural narrow-mindness?

(This is a genuine question, as I really know very little about movies. From your list, I think I saw only nine movies, and slept through two others).
 
I think FOTR and TTT were unlikely to win many major awards because they were part of a trilogy. The voters held awards back and then rewarded at the end. I wish each year was on its own merits. I also wish I was a billionaire.
 
... if Hollywood claimed to be making movies mostly for America.

I think the Oscars should take a cue from the BAFTAs--one best pic on American themes and one best pic from the rest!!
Click to expand...

But unfortunately American companies have bought up the distribution systems of most countries and pump American culture around the world. Other countries struggle to get their own films made at all, and once they're made, have trouble getting them into the cinemas.

Which I think is one of the reasons Peter Jackson is so admired, for having forced Hollywood to give up a little corner of their world-wide domain.

I would love it if the Oscars could ever become of interest mostly to Americans - because then perhaps the rest of the world would get a chance to hear their own voices instead...
 
which would comprise most of the foreign-language films, are only eligible for the Best Foreign Film award, and the candidates are restricted to one per country.

That's an almost overwhelming threshold to overcome for a foreign language film to be nominated for Best Picture. For that to happen, a foreign language film would have to have been made in the US, or by a US studio (the Harry Potter and LOTR movies, while filmed outside the US, were made by US studios). US studios are all about maximizing their revenues, which require making movies that appeal to the broadest audience. Foreign language films have a limted audience out of the box - limited to people who either speak the language or are willing to watch with subtitles or listen to dubbed voices.

The most recent "independent" film to be nominated for Best Picture was "Little Miss Sunshine", and that movie, while I loved it, wasn't as independent as many of the true independent films that are made each year. Best Picture nominations are like running for national office - you need a lot of money and a big organization to pull it off. I don't think expanding the field of nominees will change that situation.
 
To be eligible for the Oscar for Best Picture, or for any of the other categories except documentary, short, and foreign language brackets, a film need only (1) be of feature length; and (2) have a commercial screening of at least one week's length in Los Angeles county during the year in question. Lots of foreign films meet these qualifications, and a very few have been nominated for Best Picture, and quite a few more for other categories, like Best Actor, Director, or Screenplay. Eligibility has nothing to do with country of origin.

The Best Foreign Language Film award, like the Oscars for documentaries and shorts, is open to films that have not played commercially in L.A. (and as you say, submitted by country of origin to a panel of Academy members). Very rarely, a film is nominated for Best Foreign Language Film in one year, then opens commercially in the U.S. and is nominated for other awards in the following year.


That said, you're right that the bar is set high for foreign films, not only because more English-language films meet this criteria, but because the voting audience is less likely to consider them.
 
that "Pan's Labyrinth" got nominated at all, let alone the unsual number of noms (6) and one of those being in a major category (Origional Screenplay.) This is more plausible except for the fact that the Foreign Film category is almost always dominated by Europeans and to a lesser extent Japanese a bit. Lately it seems that there's only 3 spots open for foreign films b/c the other 2 are taken up every year by the obligatory films from France and Germany.[crazy]
And of course the wins for PL...When was the last time a foreign cinematographer or art director won for a Foreign Film nominee?

Occasionally, a masterpiece from a country that AMPAS deems "the Third World" sneaks in, but it has to be an absolute work of bloody genius. And then, it is lucky just to have gotten nominated. As for winning? forget it. Best Foreign Film winners almost always come from Western Europe, Australia, or Japan.
(So does this mean Guillermo is on a par with Fellini, Kurosawa, Ray etc?[sly])

In a couple of interviews, Del Toro has hinted that the Acedmy was prepared to give him the Oscar for "Pan's Labyrinth"--but there was just one big problem: the death of Ofelia. One member challenged him point-blank: "You do know that by killing the girl, you will lose the Oscar?" their exact words. (American attitudes about the HAPPY ENDING..[mad]). OF COURSE they hadn't watched the film hard enough, for Ofelia's passing was the whole point of the story, on so many levels. It was the morally logical conclsion and for the story to have had any redemptive outcome, could not have been otherewise. Happily, Del Toro remained true to his art. PL may have lost the BPF F Oscar, but like Spike Lee's "DO THe Right Thing," it has become a classic and is no doubt a film school staple by now.

Has a Mexican film ever been nominated before? WONDERFUL list of winners...


And I wish someone could link to my thread about this whole subject in OT..since the discussion is picking up here. I feel the questions I raised about this whole change of process are legitimate ones.

Why do you think this decision was made and do you think the Acedmy will nomiate blockbusters? When they were not consulated about the change? Remember, unlike SAG or other guilds, they're part of the Academy for life unless they volunatarily leave, so no-one can pressure them en masse to vote for a particular film--they won't be vulenrable to pressure. Individual pressure, bribery, shenenigans, etc....that's a different story.

Will this hurt or help? And what do you think of the proposed changes to the Oscar telelcast (speaking of Americans vs non-American).
Would

someone post a list of Foreign Film nominations, with an asterisk next to the winner for each year please?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
My guess is, probably not. But then, I am still bitter that neither FotR nor TTT won best pic. I mean, they DESERVED IT!! While Chicago and that one other movie (don't remember the title) were good films, imo, giving them the Best Pic nod still makes me want to scream.
 
Further new rules, accoerding to Nikki Finke's site:
http://www.deadlinehollywooddaily.com

1) From now on, the Honarary awards--the Irving Thalberg Award, etc--will not be given out at the Telecast, but have their own seperate event.

2)More importantly, there will be NO Best Origional Song award unless a song from a film gets 8.25% of the vote from the entire Academy. If this happens, this song and the one that gets the next highest percentage will be the 2 Best Song nominees. If a third film gets another 8.25% of the vote, there will be 3 nominees. And so on, but no more than five.
However, it is possible that from now on, ONLY the song from the Summer Blockbuster (a Pixar/Disney song? There will intense presdure to keep them in, oh, the shame if a potential money-maker does not get in, and a loss of presteige for the studio) and on obligatory other one from another money-maker will get in.
This means, likely no possibilty of something like the songs from the little-seen (in America) "Once" being nominated--much less performed on the telecast.
I am inclined to agree with Nikki on this one, if it isn't a potential financial benefit for the studios....

Seems some people were upset that there were no really good songs from American films last year, thus opening up the doors for the Indian Guy (Rahman) to get in--win--and with songs that everyone could see from the performances, were not only way better, but fantastic.
Now, the category may rightfully ( according to the thought of some of these people) be dominated by Yanks again.

More speculation...
Previously, the fewest number of Best Song Nominees was a *guaranteed* three.

And the length of the telecast still isn't changing...,meaning this opens up yet more time for the silly dance numbers for *all ten* BP nominees. No mention of THESE being cut..no, they'll be increased.

Are we going to see actual awards at this thing?? Do they think this is going to INCREASE ratings and sales, if there are fewer songsw out there for the public to find out about? All of this might have made sense last year, when there were a handful of fantastic blockbusters (Wall-E, TDK, Iron Man, Kung Fu Panda.)
But this year? Besides ST and Up and likely HP 6, what really good is there?
 
Last edited:
When I heard that they were increasing it to 10 nominees... I couldn't help but think that it would take 8 hours to get through the awards! Geez.

I don't think FotR or TT ever had a chance to win best picture... firstly, because they're fantasy; and secondly, because they knew RotK was coming and that they'd always planned on giving Peter and the films their dues at that time. Otherwise, LotR/Jackson would have swept everything all three years... and the Hollywood promoters/machine couldn't allow that.

I have very little respect for that whole process most of the time. It seems like a popularity contest more often than not. RotK was just too massively great as the 3rd installment to be ignored for best picture and best director.
 
doesn't it cheapen the achievement of getting nominated? I doubt there are normally ten movies a year that the Academy should seriously consider for the award. Often even the winner doesn’t seem that great to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top