Question about the Oscars

[winston89]

Posted: 2/3/10 at 5:07am

So, I was reading through the list of nominees on the Oscars website. And, I was wondering, I know that Disney's Up got nominated twice for best picture and best animated feature.

How is this possible? I thought that Up getting nominated for best picture kind of defeated the point of them creating a best animated feature category to begin with. I do find it interesting however, that the last movie to get nominated for best picture and be animated was another Disney film. Beauty and The Beast in 1991.

[tazber]

Posted: 2/3/10 at 6:21am

There is no specific rule against a film being nominated it both categories, it's a result of the expanded Best Picture category.

Ironically, I think it will hurt its chances in the animated category and Fantastic Mr. Fox will end up winning the award.

[givesmevoice]

Posted: 2/3/10 at 7:17am

I think it's similar to movies nominated for both Best Picture and Best Foreign Language Film. It's rare, but it's allowed within the rules.

[TimesSquareRegular]

Posted: 2/3/10 at 9:36am

I was really perplexed by the double nod for UP. Wasn't the whole idea of going back to 10 "best picture" noms a way of including more films in the process (and giving them some added punch for ticket/dvd sales)? Using two "best" slots for one film seems counter-productive.

[StageManager2]

Posted: 2/3/10 at 9:55am

givesmevoice, is right. It's similar to, say, LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL and CROUCHING TIGER, HIDDEN DRAGON being nominated for both Foreign Language Film AND Best Picture even though they've got their own category. And just like they were passed over for BP and won FLF instead, UP will lose BP and get AF as a consolation prize. Mark my words!

[winston89]

Posted: 2/3/10 at 11:51am

Thanks all, I don't really pay that much attention to the Oscars in terms of who can get nominated for what and rules related to that. So, thanks.

I didn't know that Life Is Beautiful and Crouching Tiger were nominated for both. I had always assumed that it was for foreign language, at least for LIfe Is Beautiful due to the fact that was what it won that year.

I was just a little confused is all.

[CapnHook]

Posted: 2/3/10 at 11:53am

You can be nominated twice. It's happened before in the Foreign Language Film category, I believe. And years ago people thought that MARCH OF THE PENGUINS -- a documentary -- had a shot at Best Picture.

[jrb_actor]

Posted: 2/3/10 at 2:00pm

Those genres deserve their own category because they are rarely going to make it into the Best Picture category.

Foreign Film is also a little more interesting as sometimes two or more films get very popular from one country and the film chosen as their official selection may not be the most popular, thus another foreign film from that country getting a BP (or Director, Screenplay noms). That happened to Almodovar for a couple of films I think.

[Jon]

Posted: 2/3/10 at 4:19pm

Another new phenomonon: since the number of nominations in the animated category is determined by how many animated films are actually released in the year, studios are putting out more animated films - including ones that might otherwise go straight to video. In order for there to be five nominations, there had to be at least 12 eligible animated films. Less than twelve means only 3 nominees. Less than 5, they eliminte the catogry.

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/3/10 at 4:25pm

There also used to be that rule about directors of foreign films being eligible for Best Director nominations the year after their films were released. So Fellini could get a nomination for Best Director (and for Best Screenplay) for AMARCORD the year AFTER it won for Best Foreign Film, shutting out Spielberg's nomination for JAWS.

There's supposed to be footage of Spielberg watching the nominations being read, and moaning "I can't believe they went for Fellini instead of me!"

[best12bars]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 9:55am

The rule that messes with dates is still in place. It has to do with running a movie in Los Angeles. There is a specific geographic area that a film must open in before the 31st of December, and run for at least one week in one movie theatre, in order to qualify as "eligible" for an Oscar.

If a foreign film, or any film for that matter, plays in another city or country, it's still not eligible for the major awards until it plays in Los Angeles.

With Amaccord, it was eligible for Foreign Language film (and won), but it didn't play a Los Angeles theatre until the following year. That's when it became officially eligible for the other awards. I'm not sure the Foreign Language nominees have to play in L.A. prior to consideration for that category. I think the rule is still in place, but I'm not sure.

Another weird thing happened with "Cassablanca." It was actually released in New York first, in November of 1942. But the film didn't open in Los Angeles until January of 1943, so that's the year it was eligible for (and won) Best Picture. But the U.S. release date is officially 1942. The Oscar for Best Pic is for the year 1943 (given out in 1944, almost a year and a half after the movie was first shown in NYC!).

Updated On: 2/4/10 at 09:55 AM

[Roscoe]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 9:57am

Merci, besty, for the clarification!

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 2/4/10 at 10:35am

Foreign Film is also a little more interesting as sometimes two or more films get very popular from one country and the film chosen as their official selection may not be the most popular, thus another foreign film from that country getting a BP (or Director, Screenplay noms). That happened to Almodovar for a couple of films I think.

I remember that happening with Talk to Her. Almodovar was nominated for Director and Screenplay (and won for Screenplay), but Spain submitted Mondays in the Sun as their official selection for Foreign Film and it didn't make the nominations. Though Mondays in the Sun was more well-received in Spain, it was virtually ignored in the US. The Barbarian Invasions ended up taking home the Foreign Film Oscar that year, though I thought it was a snooze-fest.