First, having ten nominees could allow some smaller films (such as Wendy & Lucy from Mark’s 2008 list) to get some much deserved recognition. Also, studios will be happy to see their critically lauded action films and comedies (such as the Dark Knight) receive some accolades.

Beating out nine opponents seems like a greater accomplishment than beating out four, so I don’t think the Best Picture winner will be diminished in any way. I hope that with the inclusion of more nominees, the actual winner will be less predictable and the ceremony itself will involve more drama.

Sometimes, 10 is not enough, Mark, you left out my favorite film of 2008, In Bruges.

But definitely, Rachel Getting Married would/should have made the cut in 2008.

Rather than harping, though, I want to agree that it would be fun if something like Nick & Norah managed to sneak through. Fingers crossed that the move to ten nominees opens the door to more genre stuff (teen romps, horror/sci fi, even rom-com) rather than just expanding to five more biopics and bait films. Ideally, this change could alter what is meant by a “Best” “Picture”.

Yep, I was a “Benjamin Button” fan, and I will continue to stand by that, by God!

Here’s my original defense: http://www.thecriticalcondition.com/2009/01/21/oscarballot-2/

“When everyone’s super, no one will be.”

Nominating more movies dilutes the achievement and the distintion. I would argue that there are hardly 5 Oscar-worthy movies produced every year, and to expand the net to include more will just be giving acclaim to more undeserving films.

You also have to wonder how something like this would affect voting patterns; studios netting two or more nominations would be almost disadvantaged.

And you liked Benjamin Button? I must have missed that post…