And here we are again. There are two films that were screened in Cannes that will very likely be named by many authorities as two of the best films of the year but are also two that don’t fit the Academy’s formula for what defines a Best Picture contender. Why? Because one is an animated film and the other a genre movie. While it’s true that Gravity and Life of Pi managed to make the cut in previous years, they are both heavy on emotion and character, while depending heavily on visual effects.
Quick primer on how Best Picture works for those who don’t know the history (it is confusing to many). In 2009, the Academy expanded their Best Picture lineup from five nomination slots and five nominees to ten nomination slots and ten nominees. In those magical years the wide array of films that were selected prove that the Academy members can expand beyond their comfort zone if given enough room.
In 2009 and 2010 voters were given ten nomination slots and ten Best Pictures. There were two films per year directed by women. There were several films nominated about women. There were animated films (Up and Toy Story 3) and genre films (District 9, Avatar, Inception). Sure, the male hero feelgood drama still dominated but there was room for more than just that.
Beginning in 2011 and up to present, the Academy has done away with the ten nomination slots and shrunk it back down to five. They still allow for more than five Best Picture nominees (an even 9 except last year). Voters had to stick to five nominating slots, making it nearly impossible for an animated film, no matter how good it is, to get a Best Picture nod.
This is the single reason that Inside Out can’t be considered a likely Best Picture nominee. The chances of it making the top five lists of enough voters is slim to none. Not only that, but it has to compete with Pixar’s other movie coming out this year, the Good Dinosaur which will feature state-of-the-art visuals as well, and will be more traditionally about your misfit male hero. Pixar against Pixar.
Once again, it would behoove the Academy to open up the Best Picture race and make it a REAL race again. While it’s true that ten sort of obliterates the unification of Best Picture and Best Director or any film ever sweeping the Oscars again, it does help address the way Hollywood has changed.
Devin Faraci wrote a nice piece about Inside Out where he says how much more meaningful the story is because the stakes are higher:
As the two emotions try to make their way back to Headquarters they are shocked to discover that Riley’s Islands of Personality – the emotional epicenters of who she is, and the things that define her as a person – are unstable. More than unstable, some of them begin to completely fail, falling away into the Memory Hole, from which nothing returns. Joy and Sadness have to get back to Riley’s Headquarters before all of the Islands collapse, changing her into someone unrecognizable.
These stakes are enormous. The world isn’t going to end, no one is going to die and the future of the human race aren’t on the line here, but the film firmly establishes that what’s going on inside Riley’s head is important. The film established that Riley is a good kid, and that Riley deserves something as basic as a smile on her face. Watching the movie – often through a film of tears – I cared more about whether Riley would keep playing hockey than I cared about whether Chris Pratt would escape the dinosaurs at my previous night’s screening.
Stakes come when we care about characters, and the biggest stakes are how things will impact those characters. We all know that Sadness and Joy will eventually make it back to Headquarters, but will they get there in time to help Riley maintain the things that make her her? And how the heck will they manage to make the journey in time? As each Island of Personality crumbled and collapsed I felt more tension and concern than I did seeing a hundred CGI cities laid waste over the last few years.
When a film cuts this deeply it’s worth considering it as one of the year’s best, whether it is animated or not.
![2025 Oscars: Can a Late-Breaker Still Win Best Picture? [POLL]](https://www.awardsdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/gladiator-350x250.jpg)
What other movies have even come out this year that would get nominated over these? This year has not been that stellar for movies. Seriously. We’re halfway through with the year, and these are the only two films really worth mentioning.
(PS – Under the picture in this article, it looks like there’s a lil’ coding mishap. Just a heads up!)
Inside Out and Mad Max are two good reasons for Academy to
expand to 10nominate better movies, but they won’t.FTFY
Not that I need to post these, but for those interested in reading the reviews for Inside Out, here you go.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/inside_out_2015/
http://www.metacritic.com/movie/inside-out-2015/critic-reviews
I believe it is now the second best reviewed Pixar movie on Metacritic (Ratatouille has a 96) and THE best reviewed Pixar movie on Rotten Tomatoes. Truly impressive.
The reviews for both of these films are, by far and away, the most positive reviews of the year. Both are being hailed as modern-day masterpieces. If they don’t get some Academy recognition, then I think I’ll finally be done with that award ceremony.
If the Academy keeps the voting system the same it will face its biggest challenge because since 2011, when they created this up to 10 thing, there was never such a strong duo of animated/blockbuster-genre fighting for a nomination as Inside Out and Mad Max (Gravity was a safe nominee in any system and American Sniper was not a blockbuster when nominations were announced).
In the top 10 of 2009/10, Inside Out world be a near lock and Mad Max likely but in this system I thing it is virtually impossible for both to make the cut. And I’m sure 3/4 nominees will not even come close to those two in terms of reviews.
” LIVE for that octogenarian dick, henny!!
What can I say? Granddad’s gotta get it somewhere! 🙂
No organization worth its salt throws out old members who are closest to the grave, without knowing what they’ve got written in their wills!!
LIVE for that octogenarian dick, henny!!
Yeah. They should push it back to ten. I’m totally on board with Mad Max getting nominated.
Haven’t there been rumblings these last few months about the Academy going back to 5 nominees for Best Picture this year? I haven’t heard much about it lately.
Seriously neurotic that they can’t honor the kinds of films that make them their piles of money, even when those films are worthy of all praise.
I really wish they would do ten, but I’m sure it will be 5 next year.
I cannot wait to see inside out, I’m dying to see it and I’m so excited about the reviews so far.
Last night I saw spy which was so funny I almost peed my pants, Melissa is a genius!
One has to remember that the number of slots or nominations is always a made up number. It can be 5, 7, 10, 15 or 42. Doesn’t really matter. Thay had a good run with 5, but one or two successful movies in 2008 with a strong fan base made them tinker with something that IMHO wasn’t broken. Since then we have this new kerfuffle that no one seems to have figured out right. It kinda reminds me of a quote from “The Wolf of Wall Street” – “It doesn’t exist, it’s never landed, it is no matter, it’s not on the elemental chart. It’s not fucking real.” So no matter if you have 5 or 7 or 10 slots, no matter if you’re Warren Buffet of Jimmy Buffet, THE RACE will go on one way or the other. The AMPAS lost their integrity by giving in to the popular vote in 2008. The Change has made some positive impact, but also a lot of controversy and harm. I’m still thinking it would have been better if they just stuck to 5. And most importantly, the number of nominees for Best Picture isn’t going to solve The Academy’s problems. Their problems lay elswhere.
“Just cull them. Cull the old fogeys who can’t think of more than ten films in a year that they actually like. Fuck the lot of them. That’s how you engender change in the Academy. Sure they’re already close enough to death.”
No organization worth its salt throws out old members who are closest to the grave, without knowing what they’ve got written in their wills!!
People seem to forget that they’re trying to build a museum, run a library, and fund scholarship and outreach programs. It’s not all about the Oscars.
I’m all for adding newer, younger, hipper, more diverse members. But pissing off the old folks who you’ve put up with for decades — right before they (potentially) hand over their wealth — isn’t really a viable institutional model.
You guys know where I stand.
Or, after the Academy deems who the “5” are …….
how about a special committee that comes up with 6-10 based upon those films which happen to garner a lone Director nom or a Writing nom or a lone Editing or a bunch of Techs (cinemat, production design, costumes, fx, score, animated) to determine those films which would suitably be considered as the other 5 Best Films of the Year to make-up a more well-rounded slate.
Sorry for the grammatical errors. Hope you all understand what I wrote. Autocorrect, man :/
Mad Max is my favorite movie of the year thus far. I think it’s incredible.
Cant wait to see Inside Out!!!
I prefer a solid 10 nominees for BP, like the 1930s/40s used to do. I loved the selection of films that were chosen for those years the Academy did it recently (2009-11 or so).
With 10, I DO think Mad Max and/or Inside Out (particularly the latter)
would have a chance. But with 5-9 or 5 … Not so much.
Since the Academy doesn’t not like to be told what to do, cant they just write in as many films as they’d like to on the ballot if ere are 10 slots available?
We already know that no matter how many slots ere are, voters complain about having to come up with 5 or 10 or whatever. Maybe they’ll Jot 2 or 3 down. Many will but 5 or 7 or 10, etc..
Cant 10 nominees come from the 10 fils that garner the most notices?
Just cull them. Cull the old fogeys who can’t think of more than ten films in a year that they actually like. Fuck the lot of them. That’s how you engender change in the Academy. Sure they’re already close enough to death.
I prefer the solid ten too, but hope springs eternal that they might get it right once in a while even under the current system.
If I could make one change to the Academy, it wouldn’t be messing with the rules, but rather getting some organizers in there to form some caucuses, and wake up the ones that already exist.
The Short Films & Feature Animation branch already makes up over 6% of the voting membership, clearly enough to get an animated film into the best picture race under the current 5% rule — IF they would organize themselves. They wouldn’t even have to agree on the film. They’d just all have to agree that they were going to vote for 5 animated films on their ballot and it would work out in most years.
Same thing with the visual effects branch which is also over 5% of the voters, to say nothing of all the sound branch people who could join them. There’s no reason that there shouldn’t be one or two big VFX blockbuster in consideration every year — if they voted their best interests.
Not enough women, people of color and young people in the Academy? Get it together and sponsor some! It’s one of the perks of membership for the people who are already there, if they’d organize themselves.
It kind of makes me wish someone would interview several animators and ask them: Did YOU put any animated films at the top of YOUR best picture list? Or ask the VFX & Sound guys the same thing about the blockbusters. If they aren’t even voting for themselves — If they don’t believe that their own work is worthy of the top prize — then why should the academy as a whole invent more complex rules to accommodate them?
“The answer is literally that too many AMPAS members complained about having to pick 10 movies to fill out their ballot. They felt it ‘cheapened’ the honour of a Best Picture nomination.”
Well, logically, if there’s going to be a possibility of 10 best picture nominations there should be the option of 10 slots to match.
“but for the Academy, thinking up 10 movies is just too darn hard. It would be really scary to learn how many new films per year the average Academy member actually watches.”
Totally!
I have mixed feelings about this. On one hand it’s really wonderfull to see pictures such as “A Serious Man”, “Winter’s Bone”, “Amour” or “Her” nominated for Best Picture. Even if they don’t get any serious award traction, it’s still a nice way of acknowledging them. That’s a definite upside of having 10 nominations in BP. On the other hand, as Syndrome for the “Incredibles” said “Everyone can be super! And when everyone’s super… no one will be.” Having only 5 slots for BP does make it more prestigious to get nominated, no doubt about that. And while having 10 nomination there were some weird choices such as “The Blind Side” or “Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close”. So sticking to 5 nominations makes sense (all the other categories have 5 slots) in terms of making it more prestigious. Sure, there are going to be movies that “were robbed”, but having 10 slots doesn’t solve the problem. Even with 20 slots still there are going to be movies that according to some should have been nominated, but weren’t. And no matter how many BP nominees you have, the actual race usually boils down to 2-3 pictures (did anyone think that “Michael Clayton” or “Seabiscuit” could actually win?).
I’m leaning towards the 5 slots, same as in any other category. There are going to be upsets no matter what, but having only five nominations for Best Picture does make it more prestigious to be nominated. And if a certain movie gets traction with the audiences, but doesn’t make it to the top 5, still the general consensus of “that movie should have been up there” is quite benefitial for the picture.
“I understand what you mean regarding the probability it won’t which prompts the question: Why did the Academy ditch the 10 slots in 2011?”
The answer is literally that too many AMPAS members complained about having to pick 10 movies to fill out their ballot. They felt it ‘cheapened’ the honour of a Best Picture nomination. Since, you know, everyone in the world with internet access can chime in with their top-10s of the year, critics for decades have been publishing their top-10s of the year, the friggin’ AFI even breaks down their various lists in top-10 formats…..but for the Academy, thinking up 10 movies is just too darn hard. It would be really scary to learn how many new films per year the average Academy member actually watches.
What I never understood is why they didn’t just work a compromise. Everyone only had to list a top five, but they did away with this silly voting structure and simply counted the 10 movies that garnered the most total votes.
“When a film cuts this deeply it’s worth considering it as one of the year’s best, whether it is animated or not.”
Couldn’t agree more, Sasha!
It will be a travesty if Inside Out doesn’t make the best picture nomination list. I understand what you mean regarding the probability it won’t which prompts the question: Why did the Academy ditch the 10 slots in 2011?
“These stakes are enormous. The world isn’t going to end, no one is going to die and the future of the human race aren’t on the line here, but the film firmly establishes that what’s going on inside Riley’s head is important.”
Yes! Devin’s point here I can relate too. The meaning is so intensely built you forget you’re even watching an animation film. You become lost (and found) within Riley’s mind. You can identify with what’s happening within Riley’s mind with your own personal psychological experiences; the battles between emotions, the memories sacrificed, and the overwhelming need to share your feelings to those you love and move on.
And it shouldn’t matter whether it’s animated or not. It’s about the deep seeded message a film sends out. If the film is successful with that mission then it deserves to be at the front-line.
This film moved me so much I wrote a review about ‘The Significance of Sadness’: http://wp.me/p5r2VG-1i
Let’s hope the Academy rewards such an achievement.
The worst mistake the Academy made in the past few years was this up-to-10 thing. And even worsened the mistake by adding preferential balloting.
In the end it is the meh “Oscar movie” like The Theory of Everything (not the good one like 12 Years a Slave, that would shine in every possible voting process) that could hurt the whole system that’s always been very good for the studios: awards are still a very reliable marketing source for films. In a diverse world much more connected and in which people can expose their opinions easily and quick via social media, the Academy HAS to show relevance. And relevance has to do with diversity. This up-10-system applied to the Academy’s own demographics prevents diversity. The “most important” matters a lot more than the “most distinguished in their genre”. That’s why mediocre things like The Theory of Everything will happen and Mad Max won’t.