Oscar nominations: Why don't the numbers match up?

Here is how one person put it:

“Year two of the great 10 best picture nominees experiment should be the last. It’s just. Too. Many. Obviously, it’s the Academy’s way of helping as many films possible get that box office bump that comes with a nomination. And I’m all for a thriving film industry. However, the most interesting part of any party often isn’t just who shows up, but who was left out. Make some tough choices, academy. Go back to the usual five nominees, and the show will be more compelling.”

The Scoop

Last year was the first time in over 40 years that the Academy increased the nomination slate from 5 films for Best Picture to a larger number (10). Being nominated for Best Picture helps a film get exposure to a larger audience. A good example from this year is, “The Kids Are All Right” which has both indie and mainstream appeal, but didn’t get a particularly large marketing budget. It will make a lot more money now that it has been nominated for Best Picture.

I was very pleased about Winter’s Bone getting a nomination. A small film that probably wouldn’t have made it if there were only five but I see your point. Ten nominations for each category would be kind of like everyone getting a “Most Valuable Player” award though.

I understand what you’re saying about giving films a commercial boost but surely The Academy has some other justification for increasing the numbers? A Best Picture should have some outstanding achievement in direction, acting, story or cinematography. It doesn’t make logical sense to have a nominee that has nothing else outstanding.

I can see 7 of the nominated films that didn’t need the box office boost and isn’t nominating Toy Story 3 just a throw-away since it will take Best Animated Feature? Couldn’t that spot have gone to another lesser seen film?

It does feel like everyone gets the “participation” reward. It’s so Little League.

Is it to placate some people in Hollywood who feel left ou? We do this with everything. We tell our children that it was just wonderful that they participated and it doesn’t matter that they didn’t win. I recall when my son held his tears back until he entered his home and blurted his disappointment that he didn’t make a team. All you could do is hug him for it does matter to him that he didn’t make it. These are grownups for goodness sakes!

When the awards were being given out many years ago, there were 10 nominees. It was shortened for brevity. Now, the Academy sees the benefit of lots of films being nominated for Best Picture.
1) More people will watch the show, since they have seen more of the nominated films.
2) More films nominated means more business for the films. Money is honey.
3) Everyone loves a good horserace, and now there are twice as many horses.

What is bugging me about this years nominations is that Hailee Steinfeld got nominated for Best Supporting Actress for True Grit. She is the lead actress, and her character is in every scene. This is her character’s story! How the hell is she supporting?

I agree @filmfann I was surprised that Hailee didn’t get the Best Actress nod. There’s more about politics to the Academy than strictly rewarding achievements.

I feel like a Best Picture should tell a new story or an old story in a new way; be too beautiful or too compelling to look away from; be somehow memorable in a way that makes you think about it days after seeing it.

I understand the political “whys” but I’m still having trouble seeing how a truly best film could be nominated alone without recognizing the components.