WorstPreviews.com Logo Join the community [Login / Register]
Follow WorstPreviews.com on Twitter
What\ News Coming Soon In Theaters On DVD Trailer,Posters,Pictures,Wallpapers, Screensavers PeliBlog.com Trivia/Quizzes
News/Headlines
Trailer for "Midnight Special" Sci-Fi Film, with Michael Shannon and Joel Edgerton
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Melissa McCarthy's "The Boss" Comedy
Nov 23rd, 2015
Trailer for Juan Antonio Bayona's "A Monster Calls"
Nov 23rd, 2015
First Look at "Central Intelligence" Comedy, with Dwayne Johnson and Kevin Hart
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for "Zoolander 2" Arrives Online
Nov 19th, 2015
Official Trailer for "Now You See Me" Sequel
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Chris Hemsworth's "The Huntsman: Winter's War"
Nov 19th, 2015
Trailer for Keanu Reeves' "Exposed" Thriller
Nov 19th, 2015
First Look at Chris Pine on "Wonder Woman" Set
Nov 16th, 2015
Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel
Nov 16th, 2015
Gerard Butler is a God in "Gods of Egypt" Posters
Nov 16th, 2015
First Look at Liam Neeson in Martin Scorsese's "Silence"
Nov 16th, 2015
New Trailer for "The Divergent Series: Allegiant"
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for "Moonwalkers" Comedy, with Ron Perlman and Rupert Grint
Nov 16th, 2015
Trailer for Charlie Kaufman's "Anomalisa" Stop-Motion Film
Nov 3rd, 2015
Poster for "Warcraft" Arrives Online, Trailer Coming on Friday
Nov 3rd, 2015
There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster
Nov 2nd, 2015
First Trailer for Sacha Baron Cohen's "The Brothers Grimsby" Comedy
Nov 2nd, 2015
"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas
Nov 2nd, 2015
Final Trailer for Ron Howard's "In the Heart of the Sea," with Chris Hemsworth
Nov 2nd, 2015
New Photos From "Warcraft" Video Game Movie
Nov 2nd, 2015
Lots of New Photos From "Suicide Squad"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for "Dirty Grandpa" Comedy, with Robert De Niro and Zac Efron
Oct 30th, 2015
Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"
Oct 30th, 2015
Trailer for Jared Hess' "Don Verdean" Comedy, with Sam Rockwell
Oct 30th, 2015
"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast
Oct 28th, 2015
Trailer for Adam Sandler's "The Ridiculous 6" Comedy
Oct 28th, 2015
"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie
Oct 28th, 2015
Another "Monopoly" Movie in the Works
Oct 28th, 2015
"Jumanji" Remake Hires "Con Air" Writer
Oct 26th, 2015
Disney's "Tower of Terror" Park Ride Movie Moving Forward
Oct 26th, 2015
Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"
Oct 26th, 2015
Previous News Stories Next News Stories

Oscars Revise Best Picture Rules Again

Posted: June 15th, 2011 by WorstPreviews.com Staff
Oscars Revise Best Picture Rules AgainSubmit Comment
For the past two years, the Academy Awards has been nominating ten nominees to compete in the Best Picture category. But now, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has decided to produce between five and ten nominees. The actual number won't be announced until the Best Picture nominees are revealed, which is done each January.

The decision was made after Academy officials noticed that some nominees don't even receive as little as 5% of the votes. Now, any film that doesn't get at least 5% of the votes won't be nominated, which means that the number of nominees could be anywhere between five and ten.

"In studying the data, what stood out was that Academy members had regularly shown a strong admiration for more than five movies," said the Academy. "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."

The 84th Academy Awards nominations will be announced live on Tuesday, January 24th, 2012, at 5:30am PT in the Academy's Samuel Goldwyn Theater and will be televised on Sunday, February 26th, 2012 at the Kodak Theatre.

Source: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences


Bookmark and Share
You must be registered to post comments. Login or Register.
Displaying 49 comment(s) Profanity: Turn On
Freudian_Nightmare writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 5:47:56 AM

Another option is to scrap the whole Academy...
telur writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:15:46 AM

next year must be Twilight Breaking Dawn for Best Picture
Avirex writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:20:54 AM

I've always considered the concept of giving out awards counter productive anyway. Instead of aiming to create truly resonating films with substance everyone aims to win a trophy and or monetary profit. There must be some form of art that doesn't rely on those things, somewhere in the world.
Damon242 writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:26:58 AM

Ridiculous. The best category normally connotes a sense of exclusivity - but now, with ten nominees, anything gets in.

j-man writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:50:02 AM

The kings speech 2 : the stammer strikes back..... for best picture or planes
Rambo writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 7:08:43 AM

how about revising the f*cking academy members who need a brain check for choosing the retarded social network soundtrack over hans zimmer's 'inception?
j-man writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 8:09:32 AM

PS what rambo said
BadChadB33 writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 8:30:12 AM

Makes that 2 of us who agree with Rambo.
DaveThePhotoGuy writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 8:51:11 AM

..count me in on that and I will be number 3, guys.
Johnnyb writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 10:13:28 AM

10 nominees should have never become elective.... Is ridiculous and stupid!!!!! Not all the 10 are worth for Oscars.... It should stay as 5 as has been before thatīs all.....
Ranger writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 11:25:15 AM

Picking 10 was like re-setting the hockey play-off rules so that almost any idiot team would get into them to make their owners some money back. Same with 10 movies... then more fans may tune in (they hope) as their fav. movie may be on that list.

Now... to arbitrarily make any number up as to who gets nominated or doesn't is a complete joke (bigger than going up to 10 was). They can make their picks even more political than before.

Oscar... French my pouch! I haven't watched you for decades... and this is yet another reason why.
elrei writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 12:10:02 PM

I'm number 4

(about what Rambo said)
Zebastian von Kane writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 12:27:04 PM

Make that count 5, for Rambo's statement.

When the academy first nominated 10 films, it was like WTF? But when they awarded Trent Reznor over Hans Zimmer, I knew the academy had sank in profit corruption and someone must take care of them.
JakeVermont writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 12:56:52 PM

agree with rambo. But what I think was even worse than that was the fact that the year before they chose Hurt Locker over Inglorious Basterds! I could have shot camerons ex in the face for that! Her movie was totally boring compared to Basterds. Tarantino put so much more ingeniuity and creativity in that movie. But hey Hurt Locker showed an american Hero in the war. THAT has to win! right? f*ck screw you academy retards for voting for the wrong reasons!

Good that Kings Speech got it this year. Imagine if they gave it to Facebook!
Ranger writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 1:04:43 PM

And Shawshank was overlooked in it's year (can't remember for what though).

The Oscar's suck almost as much as Lohan on the casting couch.
coldplayesence writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 2:05:43 PM

^ Forest Gump won that year. But if you ask me, Pulp Fiction should've won over Forest and Shawshank.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 2:45:43 PM

Pulp Fiction over Shawshank? LMFAO! Oh yeah, because a story of one's man hard-won redemption in prison (replete with excellent cinematography, music, and acting) can't compare to a Sam Jackson talking nonsense trash and a fat black man getting f*cked in the ass.

If it wasn't for Fiction, Tarantino would be doing foot fetish porn today. And he's well worn out whatever he arguably undeservably earned with that film too.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 2:51:03 PM

And, doesn't Hans Zimmer always sound like...Hans Zimmer? Give him an award for Broken Arrow and call it a day because all his sh*t sounds like all his other sh*t. Most repetitious composer ever. If you can even call him a composer. More like c*nt poseur. Or composter.
coldplayesence writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 3:05:50 PM

Well that's, you know like MY opinion. And if you're gonna talk sh*t about a guy f*cked in the ass make sure that the movie you are defending doesn't contain a similar scenario.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 3:42:28 PM

Yes, I'm aware of that, but then, that was germane to the film. He was in prison after all, and that sort of thing happens with regularity, so it is essential to the plot to depict the harshness and depredations of life behind bars and to show that Andy had to go through quite literally hell on earth as an innocent man.

Had they NOT included the element of prison rape, the discerning and informed viewer would have wondered in what universe was Shawshank located.

On the other hand, the idiotic scene in Pulp Fiction was included gratuitously. It did absolutely nothing to aid the plot, if one could say Pulp Fiction had a plot, and it was in there merely to shock the monkeys and make laugh the idiots upon seeing a fat black man tied down and further incapacitated with an oral restraint getting f*cked in the ass.

Hilarious. Excellent filmmaking, right, if you're ten year old pervert like Tarantino and his fans. In fact the entire movie is garbage. Lots of foolish scenes, lots of nonsense dialogue, but hey, it's 'cool' and all the wannabe hip teenieboppers thought that by liking Pulp Fiction they were getting backdoor access (no pun intended) to a secret world where all the other cool hip people play.

Pretentiously manufactured and staged tripe.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 3:45:37 PM

"There must be some form of art that doesn't rely on those things, somewhere in the world."

One must recall that even the Sistine Chapel was a commercial work done by Michealangelo and commissioned by the Church. Michaelangelo actually hated painting, especially the kind of painting on a huge dome's underside, but he did it because, in essence, the price was right.
coldplayesence writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 4:04:45 PM

Pulp Fiction was the title of the film, man, what did you expect? An oscar bait salvation story (oh boy, hollywood really needed one more of those) filled with tear-jacking scenes and Morgan Freeman playing Morgan Freeman? Anyway, I get it, you don't like Pulp Fiction, but you describe it like a TMZ columnist.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 4:38:53 PM

Shawshank was based on a short-story by Stephen King, written many years before the film was made, so you can't say Darabont (or King especially) was going for solely Oscar-bait material.

"Pulp Fiction was the title of the film, man, what did you expect?"

*shrug* Nothing. I just get really weary hearing how Tarantino is something special when all his films are essentially pretentious, worthless crap. Like Kill Bill.

"An oscar bait salvation story"

And yet you're the one bemoaning that the award that year didn't go to Pulp Fiction. All I'm saying, really simple here, is that Shawshank is, on every level, a vastly superior story first, when you can't even say Pulp Fuction has a story, and a great film second, which, arguably, Fiction fails there too if you demand a great film have a sense of worth beyond pandering to the director's fetishes and what's considered hip and cool at the moment.
coldplayesence writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 5:16:06 PM

Let me get this straight, you are so sure about Shawshank's superiority over Pulp Fiction and yet, you say a couple of good points about the first and then you take your time to relentlessly trash PF. A good movie promotes itself, it doesn't depend on how much of a "worthless crap" is the other.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 5:38:05 PM

lol. That's your argument, that I don't simply let Shawshank speak for itself? If I did that, if we all did that, would any of us even bother commenting? Just let the movies speak for themselves, opinions no longer necessary!

But ok, the fact that Shawshank is currently rated, by IMDb's popular audience, as the greatest film of all time should speak to the film's quality.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 5:39:44 PM

"next year must be Breaking Dawn (In) for Best Picture"

Could have sworn I already saw that film. Something to do with a white virgin and four black dudes. Lot's of screaming involved.
Ranger writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 5:46:26 PM

@Cold - I'm ok with your opinion.

Shawshank still has my vote (if not for any other reason than it's about the only King (short) story adapted to the big screen that didn't bore the f*ck outta me!). And Forest Gump I can see winning easily (thx. for the trivia. I forgot about Gump).
coldplayesence writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 5:55:52 PM

Yeah, you're gonna defend Shawshank with almighty force of IMDB. Remember when The Dark Knight came out? According to that site it was the greatest movie of all time.

An I started by saying that it was MY opinion but you didn't care, fortunately you throw in the opinions of others into the discussion, so let's see what other sites (filled equally with Tarantino haters and fans) have to say: RottenTomatoes= SR: 89% / PF: 94%. Metacritic= SR: 80 out of 100 / PF: 94 out of 100.

But seriously those are just facts, right? Who cares about them.
coldplayesence writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:01:14 PM

@ranger: I believe that too, Forest Gump was the easy pick since it was politically correct. Pulp fiction would've been an outrageous choice (that time) just like when Brokeback Mountain got screwd over that soap opera tv movie called Crash.
Damon242 writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:39:50 PM

Why don't you all just shut up?

This is a worthless argument; opinion is always subjective, particularly with films, but both examples measure well in terms of their script and execution.

Ultimately Shawshank won - maybe because out of the two films it was the better (subjective). However, it's the Academy don't forget; they wouldn't care if Shawshank wasn't the best in the category - it was just better suited to their pretentious ideology.
Damon242 writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:41:34 PM

Why doesn't this site have an 'edit' button!?

To correct my last post, "Shawshank" in the final paragraph should be replaced with "Forest Gump".
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:43:00 PM

"Yeah, you're gonna defend Shawshank with almighty force of IMDB. Remember when The Dark Knight came out? According to that site it was the greatest movie of all time."

I don't recall TDK ever being rated the number one film via IMDb. Perhaps it was for like five seconds, but you're not seriously going to compare the momentary mob fad of TDK to the longevity that Shawshank has enjoyed for years, right?

"An I started by saying that it was MY opinion but you didn't care, fortunately you throw in the opinions of others into the discussion, so let's see what other sites (filled equally with Tarantino haters and fans) have to say: RottenTomatoes= SR: 89% / PF: 94%. Metacritic= SR: 80 out of 100 / PF: 94 out of 100."

That true, but then there's also been a very pervasive opinion among many critics that Shawshank didn't get the proper attention it deserved when it originally debuted.

Critic are humans too, so they're just as inclined towards fads as the common rabble.

Pulp Fiction was one of those films that was all abuzz in film circles then, just like that trash TDK, and then, after a while, people started asking themselves just what the f*ck were they smoking.

They'll do the same with TDK I suspect while Shawshank will become on of those AFI immortalized classics like Rear Window.

OTOH, Pulp Fiction will be largely remembered for graphically depicting sado-masochistic inter-racial sodomy.

Congratulations, Quentin.

But hey, if you want to compare films, fine, we can do that, though I haven't seen that beastiality of a flick Pulp Fiction in ages so I would be very rusty in dissecting it scene for scene, but I do know that technically, Shawshank is the superior film, and unless you're one of those relativistic post-modern imbeciles that stoically disavows even the notion of superiority in art, thrusting, say, Roy Lichenstein up on the same shelf as Rembrandt, you would have to agree with me.

As for which one you like more, well that's subjective, but I have to think the folks that made Gump the winner knew well that Fiction was out there and picking up accolades and they chose Gump over Fiction for a good reason. Afterall, Fiction wasn't some unknwon that year, right?

Why they chose Gump over Shawshank, well that I cannot fathom.

"But seriously those are just facts, right? Who cares about them."

Facts without context are no better than myths.
Damon242 writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:44:32 PM

@Cold I will add though that your last post to Mink about film's critical standings is awesome.

If it didn't conflict with my own post, I'd side with you.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:45:10 PM

What the f*ck are you rambling about, damon? Shawshank didn't win that year. And ideology what? I wasn't aware that Shawshank was a paeon to liberal sensitivities, save the whole hypocritical Christian thing.

You're telling us to shut up and you can't even read.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:46:18 PM

"@Cold I will add though that your last post to Mink about film's critical standings is awesome."

It would have been a hell of a lot better if it wasn't wrong. lol
coldplayesence writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 6:58:47 PM

Give it a rest minkowski, if you can't accept the facts it's time to let go buddy.
And I would never compare SR with TDK, I was talking about how innacurate is IMDB, and it wasn't 5 seconds, it was a seriouly embarrasing situation.
@damon: thanks, I would apprecieted more if you didn't side the lame philosophy behind the oscars comitee.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 7:09:14 PM

lol, I was aware of the 'facts' well before you my friend. It's well known fact that there's a disconnect between how well Shawshank is regarded today and how well it was regarded in the few days after it debuted.

By your argument, Blade Runner really is nothing special whatsoever. Same case really. Dismissed by critics during its initial run, and yet considered a superlative masterpiece today, put there by the people that actually matter: the popular mass of viewers. But I guess you think some fat guy over at Slashfilms has more weight than a few million ordinary viewers, right?

But hey, you and Damon, the guy who can't read, hang on each others c*cks. You'll need it in facing cold-hard reality. lol.

Oh, and yeah, one last thing, I actually real-time tracked TDK on IMDb, and though it wasn't (of course) 'five seconds' it was a very short time, basically a statistical hiccup that coincided with the films post-release fervor and hype.

So whadda you know about it, Capone?
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 7:09:41 PM

+a.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 7:15:44 PM

BTW, how do you feel about The Thing? You seem to think it's a 'great film' even though it has a 79% RT rating and failed at the BO. Still great film in your opinion, or do the critics and money numbers not matter here in this particular case?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/board/nest/183676617
coldplayesence writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 7:29:02 PM

Well Shawshank came out a long ago so shouldn't it be mentioned on pair with the Godfather by now? The cold truth is no, just like Darabont isn't as known as Quentin even when both are very talented.
Moving on, that damon guy is with you man so technically...
And yeah, on The Thing I stand behind what I said, it's a great film, deal with it.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 7:36:33 PM

I don't have to deal with it so much as you have to come to terms with the cognitive dissonance of entertaining two different standards, and likely more, for each film you persionally like, whereas I said, up front, Shawshank is simply, technically, a better film by far, and all the millions of people, not egg-headed stuck up their asses critics, matter.

"Well Shawshank came out a long ago so shouldn't it be mentioned on pair with the Godfather by now?"

No idea how I should address that. The Godfather was always over-rated, even though it is technically a well-made film, you have to understand that it's considered a truly great film because of how it was percieved when it debuted whereas Shawshank has climbed to the top of the democratic IMDb polls in spite of the lack of critical acclaim, and the lack of widespread dissemination.

Truly, Shawshank is a grassroots film success, whereas The Godfather was installed somewhat top-down as one.

Dunno about you, but the people matter to me, not the f*cking elites.

"Moving on, that damon guy is with you man so technically..."

No, no, he's very clearly on your d*ck, so have fun with him. Pulp Fiction style.
coldplayesence writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 7:56:42 PM

Meh this got really boring I mean, you say your opinion won't change, just like mine so this whole argument was pointless because I said it was only my opinion in the first place.
minkowski writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 8:34:08 PM

As did I.
Scott Baiowulf writes:
on June 15th, 2011 at 11:50:00 PM

Awards are bullsh*t

As the viking way, there is but 1 true award: the severed head of your opponent on a stick.
sri_91 writes:
on June 16th, 2011 at 2:00:17 AM

Shawshank deserved the oscars but thats no reason to bash Pulp Fiction!

JakeVermont writes:
on June 16th, 2011 at 5:14:42 AM

could sombebody please shovel his balls up minkyboys mouth? Minkyboy why are are you so messed up man? cant you leave somebody alone with his opinion? Come on man have you been raped by your father? Lay down, son! tell me about your childhood.....
sri_91 writes:
on June 16th, 2011 at 8:41:22 AM

^ LOL!
minkowski writes:
on June 16th, 2011 at 5:59:28 PM

You're such a hilarious hypcrite, Jake, you know that right? You're one of the little troll faggots that couldn't let me have my opinion when I started here, now you're telling me to let this guy have his opinion, and calling me f*cked up when it was you that did the very same f*cking thing a few years back?

Forgot that sh*t, didn't you little d*ckless *sshole maggot? I didn't. Didn't forget you sucking off PrevalentMind either. And I won't let *you* forget either. So think long and hard (should be good with that, no?) about what you say to me from now on.

"could sombebody please shovel his balls up minkyboys mouth?"

I bet you'd like that, shoving some balls into a dude's mouth, right Jakey Jake? Jake and the Fagman, aka you and your big brother getting in some alone time, right?

"Minkyboy why are are you so messed up man?"

Why are you so weak and pathetic? Words, man, just words. Do the evolution man, either adapt or die. Preferably die.

"cant you leave somebody alone with his opinion?"


Wah. Him and his opinion just can't be left alone. Grown men, (allegedly right?) crying about how they and their opinion are getting attacked. Wah. Shut the f*ck up you sorry weakling faggot, you're not fit to wipe my ass with your sleeve.

"Come on man have you been raped by your father?"

Why, looking to take my place after your dad went the pen where he'll get done to him what he did to you?

"Lay down, son!"

Man, I bet you've heard that often. From daddy, from the Catholic priest after communion, from the dude in the ice cream truck...

"tell me about your childhood.....'

Why? Was yours so filled with bleeding anuses and midnight crying jags you now need to know what a normal childhood looks like so you and your life partner can achieve intimacy?
JakeVermont writes:
on June 17th, 2011 at 6:20:24 AM

Oh Minkyboy I love you so much :D you still dont get it right? You re so predictable. I do that every time and every time you show the same reaction. Did you feel emotionaly attacked by me? well, I'm really sorry for that...

Oh wait no I'm not! Seriously man something must have f*cked up your mind so terribly that you just have to thrust your opinion in somebodys head like a gay porn star does with his scene partner.

Didnt your parents love you enough? Did your dad screw around with the pool boy? You need help man. really, go talk to someone.

I wish you the very best.

Oh wait. still no. go f*ck yourself, film it and add some CGI in cuz you are in the buisness and know so much about FX and stuff. Maybe even Spielberg would like to direct that^^

There's a Good Reason Why Luke Skywalker Isn't on "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Poster

"The Walking Dead" Fan Kills Friend Who Turned Into a Zombie

Ridley Scott Reveals Another Title for "Prometheus" Sequel

"Indiana Jones" Producer Says Harrison Ford Will Not Be Recast

Johnny Depp and Edgar Wright Team for "Fortunately, the Milk"

"Spectre" Breaks Box Office Records Overseas

Paul Bettany Responds to Jason Statham's "Avengers" Insult

"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" Demolishes Pre-Sale Records

Sandra Bullock to Star in Female Version of "Ocean's Eleven"

Daniel Craig Would Rather Commit Suicide Than Return as James Bond
Lace Wedding Dresses from ViViDress UK online shop, buy with confidence and cheap price.
WorstPreviews.com hosted by pair Networks WorstPreviews.com
Hosted by pair Networks
News Feeds | Box Office | Movie Reviews | Buzz: Top 100 | Popularity: Top 100
Poster Store | About Us | Advertising | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Web Tools | Site Map
Copyright © 2009 WorstPreviews.com. All rights reserved