[Samuel]

One movie coming up is '9'. It does look really good and is certainly a more compelling story than Trek. Cant count chickens etc etc etc.... but there are a lot of competitors that Trek would have to beat.

[NCC-73515]

I, IV, VI and VIII got nominated, I think.

[Elizadolots]

The Los Angeles Times has lots and lots about the expanded Best Picture category. The story I linked to says this:

The uncharacteristically bold change caught Hollywood studios off guard and reset all the expectations for Hollywood's biggest prize, which now would seem to have room on its short list for well-regarded popcorn films such as this summer's "Up" and "Star Trek."

This Story says:

oubling the number of best picture nominees completely changes the calculus for predicting which movies will have a shot at the top Oscar.

It's tough to say how academy members will think about their expanded voting opportunities. Will they select more of the oh-so-serious adult dramas that have dominated the Oscars for the past few years, or will they expand their horizons to include more celebrated indies, mainstream tent poles and even -- dare we say it -- comedies?

We know it's too early to make predictions, but with that in mind, here are five films that have just seen their chances at a best picture nomination go from "good" to "great," five independent or quirky films whose odds just got better and five crowd-friendly movies that might have a shot now: {snip} {this is in the crowd friendly section}
"Star Trek" About as far from Oscar's traditional wheelhouse as you can get, but there's no ignoring the overwhelming vote from critics and audiences.

I'll note that the print edition of this second story was illustrated with only two pictures....one from UP and one from Star Trek. Since the purpose of the pictures is to get people to read the article, that says the LA Times knows Star Trek brings the crowd.

[kevin]

Well there's certainly a good argument as to why a populist films shouldn't be awarded a nomination as such, but I think the last film that could be termed an action blockbuster to get a Best Picture nod was 'The Fugitive' in 1994.

I remember a movie magazine article that had asked why it couldn't have been possible for 'Jurassic Park' to be a Best Picture nominee alongside 'Schindler's List'. One a hit with the public, one with both the public and the critics.

But then I guess it comes back to how one defines 'Oscar-worthy' - which will not be the same answer for everyone.

[Samuel]

Because Jurassic Park was a great ride but not a whole lot of substance.
It also depends on your definition of an action blockbuster. RotK might qualify considering the battles... albeit fantasy ones.

[kevin]

Originally Posted by Samuel

Because Jurassic Park was a great ride but not a whole lot of substance.

And that's all a lot of populist films are, which is why they don't as a rule get nominated for Best Picture Oscars.

And yet, films which more often than not at least try to have some semblance of substance, and which do get nominated are not often the big financial hits (Milk, The Reader etc) And sometimes a well written light film crops up every few years after a couple of dour films win to rebalance things a bit (It Happened one Night, The Apartment, Shakespeare in Love, etc). There can even be the one-off style year, where a horror film sweeps the boards (Silence of the Lambs).

There is of course, a third way - the vast old Hollywood style overblown epic (see Gone with the Wind, Ben-Hur, Spartacus, Gladiator and Titanic)

[Solex]

....or a People's Choice award instead. The Oscars it may get will be for all of those SFX.

In fact, I believe that it will beat Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen in the tech category

[Elizadolots]

There seems to be some belief in the LA Times staff that a lot of the people who get to vote for Best Picture are no more interested in "arty" films than mainstream movie goers. Opening up the nominations could give those people a chance to vote for a really popular movie. While there is a narrow "nominating" committee, for Best Picture, everyone in the Academy gets to vote.

[kevin]

Well, last night when I was reading more about it (no 10 directors this time, I take it - just the Best Picture category?) and it pointed out that under these rules and based on populist then if applied to last year then films such as The Dark Knight and Tropical Thunder could have been nominated.

Now, while there would be justification for TDK, there is absolutely nothing right about claptrap like Tropical Thunder being in the running for an Oscar (I fail to see even why Robert Downey got nominated), popular with the public or not.

By that extension - let's line up X-Men Origins: Wolverine as a contender.

If those were the kinds of film that would have a real shot at a nomination then I wish I was an Academy member so I could vote them out.

[Big D]

Originally Posted by kevin

there is absolutely nothing right about claptrap like Tropical Thunder being in the running for an Oscar (I fail to see even why Robert Downey got nominated), popular with the public or not.

Like the film or hate it, there's a strong argument that Downey Jr's acting was nothing short of incredible.