I can't find the original article, but there was an article/talkback because the Academy was supposedly going to get rid of the category so that South Park couldn't be nominated. And like so many things back in the day, it turned out to be completely false.

Maybe they should do that for ALL the categories. Instead of having, for example, 10 slots for Best Picture that must be filled regardless of the quality of movies for that year, have some sort of point system that lets the Academy decide how many films truly deserve the nomination.

I'm sure the next announcement will be they are cutting the "In Memory of" segment down to a list of names during the closing credits.

It's the kind of inexplicable Hollywood logic that makes you bang your head against your desk in frustration.

The old people thing sucks though. The Grammys have been doing that for a while now and I think it's rotten. If anything you should give the oldies their time so they can really be recognized for their life's work. That's the whole point isn't it? How can they get recognition if no one sees.

Here's another time-saver. When announcing presenters, have them already at the podium! Why do we need to see Tom Cruise and Kathy Bates, walk across the stage? Instead the Academy thought it a good idea to have nominees in some categories lined up on stage to hear who won so the winner, who no doubt had the shittiest seats in the house, wouldn't waste time coming up to the stage. Their other genius idea - handing awards to winners in their seats.

And on the subject of presenter's, have only one per category? Why does it take 2 people to read a list of nominees, open an envelope, and read a name?

And to that guy above me saying Persepolis was screwed WAY harder than TDK? I've just read your Subject line I'm not even in full chat expansion mode, but I already know your a boner. What else should Persepolis get? I got an Oscar nom? I guess everytime someone takes a comic and makes a moving replica of it we should all shit our pants in amazement? I guess then Sin City got pretty fucked as well.

Seriously its like you guys have never tried using the internet before. Here is a good link for you.

www.imdb.com

Or

http://www.oscars.org/

I'm also on board for killing Best Animated Feature. Combine it with the animated shorts. Better than giving a nomination to another SHREK or HAPPY FEET or, even, this year's Pixar model just because you have to fill a category with nominations.

The idea that the Oscars should cater to an audience is assinine.

The Oscars are an industry event, people. You've got your People's Choice and MTV for all that "our votes must be considered" crap.

I agree that they should cut both the Best Animated Feature and Best Original Song categories. They're worthless relics of when Disney was pushing everyone around in the '90s.

If they want to shunt boring crap off the show, why not move best sound/sound editing/visual effects etc. to the technical Oscars ceremony. Or move the Best Documentary, Short Subject to some non-televised hippie commune in Northern California.

Because, as scientists have proven, the world revolves on an axis shoved straight up yours.

Irony

But having like a review of Oscars from five years ago and seeing if the movie that one for best picture was really correct, and say a movie could be stripped of its title if the said title (Crash) did not win the votes again, after getting some distance from the movie.

In fact, I think the lifetime achievement awards should only be given to people who have never won an Oscar, but whose body of work is definitely Oscar-worthy.

"My initial thoughts about what a title can do was to set mood and the prime underlying core of the film's story, to express the story in some metaphorical way. I saw the title as a way of conditioning the audience, so that when the film actually began, viewers would already have an emotional resonance with it."

If Best Song has to stay, at least eliminate the live performances. They've been a horrible pace-killer for years.

The thing I laugh at is that for a bunch of supposed film aficionados you guys really don't seem to give a shit about who contributes on a film beyond the big name categories like director, actor or writer, much like the average filmgoer only cares about stars. I mean, do you think art director Dick Sylbert didn't have an impact on the movies he worked on, or costume designer Edit Head, or editor/sound designer Walter Murch or makeup artist Rick Baker or graphic designer Saul Bass? Hell, I could make the argument that Dede Allen was the bigger auteur in the editing bay than most of the directors she worked for.

I kid! About the jew part at least.

There have been more Best Picture winners about people from India - Gandhi and Slumdog Millionaires - that has won best picture than about gay people, and just as many movies about Viet Nam as moves about jews. So you're argument has no basis whatsoever.

Best killing story development at the third act while we wait for the bad guy to die.

Best Political Insult at Republicans

Best unrealistic portrayal of romance in movies (ie nice guy gets girl at end for being nice)

Best FX Picture to feature major landmarks to be destroyed (GI Joe for the Eiffel Tower, 2012 for the White Hosue)

Best fictional category

Best Blinking Instead of Actual Crying

Best Pacing While Yelling

Best Green Saturation

Best Camera-Shake In The Place of Fight Choreography

Best Token Old Person in a Comedy

Best Gay Pirate/Vampire/Droid

By chance anybody ever see the movie Bass directed about the super-smart ants?

That is all.

Up! probably, but only because WALL*E half-brought the goods.

I dunno. Can I change my vote? All of them except TOY STORY II and THE INCREDIBLES?

Golly. That's an award that would cause the Academy to blow a collective gasket.