KMKinCB wrote:

---

For me the biggest reason I'm angry about HP not getting an nod at all is that it is better than any of the LOTR films were and yet that got what 13 Oscars? Like wtf.

And not that I think any movie should get nominated for this reason, but wasn't the reason they expanded the noms was because they wanted to include more mainstream movies/box office draws? LOL at this years movies. Like personally I don't think a film should be nominated just because of it being a Box Office Draw but I thought that's why they did it.

No, I don't think that's why they did it, and it's certainly not the official line on why they made the change.  That official line is that they wanted to reward films that were deserving even beyond the magical five number.  It just so happened that The Dark Knight's snub had happened the year prior and so that became the explanation for the change in the press.  If you look at other near misses in the years prior to the ten nominee change, as the Academy did when making the change (though no specific titles were given; just the number of films that would have made the BP lineup per year), contenders for inclusion under the new rules include WALL-E, The Wrestler, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Into the Wild, Dreamgirls, United 93, Pan's Labyrinth, Walk the Line, The Constant Gardener, Hotel Rwanda, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind... very few on this list are the The Dark Knights of the world.  The Academy knew this.

The Academy uses Best Picture to add prestige and, in recent years, to give box office legs to the films that it likes.  In that regard, thinking that they made the change wanting to reward huge blockbusters which they've never gone for just doesn't fit with their actions.

If you need any other persuading, here's the reasoning for the "Five-to-Ten Nominee" change, from the official press release: “A Best Picture nomination should be an indication of extraordinary merit.  If there are only eight pictures that truly earn that honor in a given year, we shouldn’t feel an obligation to round out the number.”  In other words, they want to reward those films that have wide support in the Academy.  I don't think they care one iota whether or not those films are huge blockbusters, as they show us year after year with their nominations dominated by prestige films.

* * *

As for HP vs. LOTR: listen, I'm a fan of the Harry Potter books-- I've read them all, six of them at least twice, and four of them 3+ times.  I haven't read a page of the LOTR trilogy and don't know that I ever will.  But still, I think the LOTR films > the HP films.  If all the of the HP films were of the quality of PoA, or even of GoF, I would agree with you.  I LOVE those two.  But SS/CoS are mediocre family films, OOTP is incomprehensible to those who haven't read the book, HBP is good, DH.1 is good but a little boring, and DH.2 serviceable.  So no, I don't think that HP is due any extra acclaim.

And I know that you didn't suggest this, but others have: the argument that HP is owed some award because of its box office success is absolutely bogus.  Should we also reward the Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Twilight series for topping the box office?

Sorry for the rant, but I hear these two points made all the time about HP and about blockbusters missing out and just wanted to add my $0.02.

Blazing Vortex wrote:

---

But now Melissa McCarthy for Bridesmaids? So farting/burping/diarrheaing in sinks is Oscar-worthy now? Because that's pretty much all her character was. I didn't see any stellar acting there. It really is an insult to Shailene Woodley who was AMAZING in The Descendants.

I'm not trying to insult Melissa McCarthy and I don't like to blame actors when I feel they get an undeserving nomination... but come on. It was such a stupid role. Maybe someone in here that's said they're happy about the McCarthy nomination can explain to me why she deserves it? I'm just curious.

Interesting comment about stupid roles.  I'm trying to think this through. I think that most often, good roles rule people into the Oscar conversation (it's why biopics are so successful) but bad roles don't rule people out if they love the star.  And Hollywood clearly loves McCarthy now.  However, I have to say that I think it's a great role-- it's funny as hell, and it has a serious scene to anchor it in the Oscar realm.

Speaking of which, people on here seem obsessed with the Belle en Blanc scene, but I'd bet the farm that the Academy members who voted for her actually used that final dramatic scene with Kristen Wiig as reason that she's deserving of the nomination.

Why do I think she's deserving?  Because it was a) hilarious and b) unlike any other character I've ever seen.  She's excellent at physical comedy, but most of all, her line delivery commands attention.  I'd describe it as her sounding confident-- and when that confidence is applied to the comedy of her intro scene ("I'm going to climb that like a tree"), it serves to make everything funnier, and when it's applied to the dramatic scene, it makes her more relate-able and believable.  But that's just me.  Comedy is 10x more subjective than drama.  You either love it or you don't.