I'm going to go out on a short limb, and say you haven't seen all of the nominated movies. It's difficult cutting that particular list down to 5. In fact, there were probably more movies that could have been nominated (Fruitvale Station, for example) that weren't, because there were already too many on the ballot.
They only changed it because the Nolan fanboy ball lickers were outraged over the TDK snub. Ironically, when you bring up the many plot holes they pull out the "it's just a movie, don't take it so seriously" card.
I saw 8 out of the 10, but that's neither here nor there. My point remains: nominating 10 movies waters-down the "prestige" of being nominated. Imagine if they gave out 10 different medals at the Olympics instead of just Gold, Silver, and Bronze. They wouldn't mean nearly as much. "I won Copper in curling!" Yeah, who cares?
Except only one movie wins best picture so that comparison doesn't really make sense. The number of nominees doesn't matter because only one winner is chosen
Some of you stroking DiCaprio's meat just a liiiiiiiiiiiittle too much. He didn't deserve to win this year, talented as he is. Hell, he didn't even get nominated for "Django" (probably because he was so perfectly loathsome). He's not even 40 yet, he might just win outright rather than have to accept the Pity-F*** Oscar when he hits 70.
Kinda agree, although not a big deal, really. I think it's better when they have it at 5. Really, there's always going to be 3 that aren't even in the running (this year, that would have been Her, Philomena, and Nebraska- and I say that even though Nebraska is my favorite of them all). Wolf, 12 Years, American Hustle, Captain Phillips, and Gravity would have been fine. It's more about money- even for a movie to receive a nomination, DVD rentals and sales go up. Probably why they did it. Just one thing, though- for all those individuals that slam Hollywood for congratulating itself, newsflash: EVERY INDUSTRY GIVES OUT AWARDS! I've been writing resumes for over 15 years, covering almost every field, and they almost all give out awards- in particular the military, who most of these naysayers slobber over (respect the military, don't get me wrong, but some are a bit silly in their fanatical praise of them).
Actually, the correct "Olympic" comparison would be if they only allowed 5 people/countries to compete in each Olympic event (vs. the 10-12+ they allow now). Its clear there are a lot of deserving candidates for best picture every year... and yes, some of it is a marketing gimmick as more films get to have the "best picture nominated" tag-line on their DVD boxes... but I don't think it "cheapens" the competition just as long as they still only award 1 winner. Would be interesting to see what the "5" would have been if it was still by the old system... mine would be: 1. 12 years a slave 2. American Hustle 3. Wolf of Wall St. 4. Gravity 5. Her (I end up having to exclude DBC which had the best two actors, Nebraska, Captain Phillips, and Philomena).
Don't think Her would have been excluded... not with the best original screenplay win. Its pretty rare to have a picture get best original screenplay, but not get a nomination for best picture overall. Just a brief glance at past winners, I see Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind and almost famous as two that weren't nominated for best picture. EDIT: found some more... Usual Suspects, Thelma & Louise. Guess it could be plausible.
It does, though. Because being NOMINATED used to be almost as prestigious as winning. Now, it means next to nothing. It was 5 movies for 65 years. The change was unnecessary and dilutes the honor of being nominated.
Wolf of Wall street was a poorly made movie. It just made a lot of not so badass people feel badass as if they were swimming in sin. Like teens watching American Pie, very similar quality but with shinier toys. Setting story aside, it was extremely forgettable and comparable to Transformers.
I think you're being a little dramatic that it means "next to nothing". Its not like they're nominating Transformers, or the Saw movies. I think they're all recognizing that nominating just 5 for all those years was a mistake. That recognizing all potentially deserving movies not only is more lucrative, but gets more exposure for deserving movies that would have otherwise been excluded in the past (like Dallas buyers club, Nebraska, Philomena). All nominated movies are still "great" movies with "great" reviews. If they start nominating mediocre movies, then by all means they should go back to 5. Also, its not like they "have" to nominate 9-10, just that they can now if the movie is deserving. In previous years, they've had 10 in the field... this year was only 9.
What about some who never won Best Director? Alfred Hitchcock Robert Altman Stanley Kubrick Not an Oscar award for any of them, arguably the 3 best directors of all time (before some diss Altman, go see MASH, McCabe and Mrs. Miller, The Long Goodbye, Nashville, The Player, Short Cuts, and 3 Women first before you do so). DiCaprio will win one of these years. He's that good.
