Inside Out

[Ben]

Exactly.

See...Eric *can* make a decent point!

[James]

Unless they've changed the rule, I don't think "eight" is an official number for Best Picture. When they added more nominees they originally set it at "ten". Later they changed it to "between five and ten" depending on vote percentages.

[Dacey]

"Eight" isn't the official number. There can still be ten, but there never are because the Academy is so full of snobs that they've made it extremely hard for a movie to even be eligible. A movie must score an insanely high 8.5 average in order to be in the running for the prize, so even if Inside Out gets a lot of votes to be in the category, unless it gets that score, it won't be nominated.

It's the same BS that severely limited the Best Song category in 2011 (the year that only Muppets and Rio were nominated). They changed that rule later, if I'm not mistaken, but instead applied the same bogus voting process to the Best Picture category. Ironically, the "ten nominations" thing was so they could nominate more "mainstream" movies, but now they just use it to give nods to more obscure indies that most people have never heard of. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but if you're going to have ten nominations, just have ten nominations. Don't make it deliberately overly complicated for a "big" movie to even have a chance.

[EricJ]

Point was, they were originally talking about scrapping the 8-10 rule in March, immediately in the wake of last year's disaster--
And the sudden reversing of their stand, and not adopting the particular scoring regulations that limited votes for animated films, didn't happen until late-summer/fall, AFTER Inside Out became the lead running favorite...One announcement was before May, and one was after.

This smells like so much of a deliberately orchestrated Best Picture draft-letter, it might as well have "Greetings from the Academy" on it.

Ironically, the "ten nominations" thing was so they could nominate more "mainstream" movies, but now they just use it to give nods to more obscure indies that most people have never heard of. Not that there's anything inherently wrong with that, but if you're going to have ten nominations, just have ten nominations. Don't make it deliberately overly complicated for a "big" movie to even have a chance.

And that, frankly, they haven't even heard of--
The lack of good "big" movies, coupled with the shortened voting period (to try and keep out Miramax/Weinsteins' hype-machine, which failed) reduced baffled voters to the same buzz-fan list-cribbing from the snobbish arthouse NBOR Critics' lists and the hype-gullible Golden Globes, to the point that any lead Actor/Actress performance automatically qualified the movie to get a Picture vote.
If you're going to give Benedict Cumberbatch a Best Actor nom, just give him one, you don't have to flatter him with Picture and Director to emphasize the point just because you couldn't think of seven others.

[Ben]

But (whisper it), there *weren't* seven others...

[Dacey]

Inside Out's chances of a Best Picture nomination just went down. If the movie can't make the much looser Best Picture Comedy category at the Globes, I don't see it making it at the Oscars

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/12/10/go ... -list-2016

It is good, however, to see that the laugh riot The Martian got a nod.

EDIT: Someone told me that animated films aren't even eligible for the Best Picture categories at the Globes anymore. Is this true?

[James]

True:

Animated motion pictures are not eligible for the Best Motion Picture – Drama, Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy or Best Motion Picture -- Foreign Language awards

[EricJ]

EDIT: Someone told me that animated films aren't even eligible for the Best Picture categories at the Globes anymore. Is this true?

I'd say that's very likely--
The Globes' rules are confusingly different and dumbed-down from those of the Academy, and they don't have the quota on votes for animated Pictures that necessitated keeping eight Oscar nominations this year. They tend to be much less subtle, and say "if it's animated, it's Best Animated".

How many times must we post the reminder, people, the Globes are an incompetent JOKE? Yes, they're early so you're excited, but that doesn't make them qualified.

[Bill1978]

Even if they are a joke, they tend to align with the popular view of cinema and television. I think that's why people still pay attention to them. Their lack of need to be totally serious and arty helps them nominate some of the more fun movies out there. I mean never in a million years would I have thought the words Golden Globe nomination would have been applied to Scream Queens and it happened, but it doesn't bother me.

[EricJ]

It used to be a joke every year on one of the movie boards I was on, every time somebody posted the Globes list and said "Okay, which of these will win the Oscar Picture?" to point out, "Who IS this mysterious 'Hollywood Foreign Press', anyway?"
One newspaper article tried to track them down and couldn't find anybody, except for a few "associate members" who'd basically bought their membership. Finally someone did mention going on a press junket with a HFPA member, and finding them a "sickening celebrity kissup" in the interviews.

The awards date back to the 30's, when Hollywood press coverage, even overseas coverage, was a major industry that worked hand in glove with the studio moguls, and represented the press's view, while the Oscars were the industry's view.
Nowadays, the "press" is sycophantic studio publicists, and the awards have pretty much become a compendium of everything popular convention thought had "Oscar buzz" ("Martian for Best Picture?") to see whether it makes sense once you actually give it one. Weeding out the chaff, basically. (At least it was, until the shortened Oscar voting just made voters believe the whole thing and crib the entire lists like a fourth-grader writing his entire school report out of a Wikipedia page.)

Back before we started taking it "seriously" again, I can remember back in the 90's when the GG's were laughed at because Ted Turner was showing them as a cheesy substitute for his not being able to get the Oscars for his network--
Which made us all joke about "GG also stands for Goodwill Games."

Even if they are a joke, they tend to align with the popular view of cinema and television. I think that's why people still pay attention to them. Their lack of need to be totally serious and arty helps them nominate some of the more fun movies out there. I mean never in a million years would I have thought the words Golden Globe nomination would have been applied to Scream Queens and it happened, but it doesn't bother me.

Not to mention, they're still stuck in the 30's "banquet" mode of presentation, where the nominees sit at tables enjoying a meal and drinks...LOTS of drinks.
In fact, it can be theorized that the free drinks seems to be the main incentive for them to show up at an award show that's not taken as seriously, especially after burnout from the more personally involved Guild and SAG awards.

Every year, we just wait to see what happens during the last hour or two.
(And wait, if Meryl Streep didn't do her "racist" anti-Disney flipout at the well-snockered GG's, what awards show was that from?)

[Dacey]

In fact, it can be theorized that the free drinks seems to be the main incentive for them to show up at an award show that's not taken as seriously, especially after burnout from the more personally involved Guild and SAG awards.

Which always take place after the Globes. (And also, for what it's worth, have the "banquet format" as well)

But making an attempt to go back on topic here, the rule is silly. Especially since the Globes were the one place an animated film really stood a chance for a BP nomination (although, I suppose I should've figured this out a long time ago, since the last one to get a nod there was Wallace in Gromit, which was the last year before they introduced their BAF category in 2006).

[James]

...But making an attempt to go back on topic here, the rule is silly. Especially since the Globes were the one place an animated film really stood a chance for a BP nomination (although, I suppose I should've figured this out a long time ago, since the last one to get a nod there was Wallace in Gromit, which was the last year before they introduced their BAF category in 2006).

Not just a chance for a Best Picture nomination -- three films actually won it: Beauty and the Beast, The Lion King, and Toy Story 2.

[Dacey]

No Best Picture nomination at the Critics Choice Awards...and they have ten nominations...

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/news/6 ... ominations

You know, I loved Mad Max just like everyone else. But I can't say it's "more worthy" of a Best Picture nod than Inside Out is.

[Ben]

Yes, I agree. Max and Inside Out tie for best of year for me, but Inside Out pips it, and I'd add The Walk to a top three even though that has no hope of any recognition, a real shame for Gordon-Levitt's fantastic performance if nothing else.

But...ouch...not even a nomination in ten slots? In such a crap year for movies? Hopefully actual filmmakers will be able to recognise where the brave efforts were made...

[LotsoA113]

But...ouch...not even a nomination in ten slots? In such a crap year for movies? Hopefully actual filmmakers will be able to recognise where the brave efforts were made...

Gotta disagree with ya there on 2015 being a crap year for movies Ben. For me personally, 2015 has delivered a number of top-notch features, including Sicario, Steve Jobs, The Diary Of A Teenage Girl, Tangerine, Bridge of Spies, 99 Homes, Spy and Creed.