Five more best picture noms is at least one too many

I have several complaints about the recently announced expansion of the best picture nominees from five to ten.

1. Confusion. Our short term memory only allows us to consider about five to nine items at once, making ten too many by at least one. It’s relatively easy to think of five things and choose your favorite. Ten requires you to do something like write them down and assign scores to each. Is the Academy unaware of integers between five and ten?
2. Faulty logic. One of the main reasons cited for the change is that the Academy has been perceived as “elitist” in recent years for ignoring crowd favorites. But isn’t this the point of a professional critique—to choose the elite? Crowd favorites can easily be determined by looking at the box office returns, or the number of tickets sold—or by letting anyone vote instead of just Academy members.
3. Doublespeak. The Academy claims the decision had nothing to do with business goals, but the New York Times reports that “the academy clearly hoped for a ratings bump from the change.”
4. Time. Isn’t the Oscars presentation already too long? And who has time to see all ten best picture nominees?

I’m hoping they’ll change their mind on this and revert to five. Or at least seven, plus or minus two. Then again, I’m still hoping SyFy will correct their error, and go back to “Sci Fi.” I’m guessing neither will happen.

comment

As Ed Tufte (www.edwardtufte.com ) has often said with religious fervor: “progress is often measured in data density” – how many bits and bytes can be jammed per unit of time and/or area, and processed, has come to determine a level of human intellectual, technological and evolutionary capacity. Eg., cable TV also has increased in programming density reflecting an advancing evolution.

And importantly, as world and US population will DOUBLE within the next 41-45 years (astounding but true), more worthy (and unworthy) films are simply being made. Instead of adding another awards show (agh!), I’m in favor of increasing the density of the existing primo de modo imperfecto.

The Academy surely also needs mo’money – a lot mo’. And since when did capitalism ever suggest it was after quality — not quantity? Never.

Paul van Winkle ( 2009/06/29 at 06:48 )

Please Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published)

Website