The Academy Awards: EPIC FAIL

First of all I have to point out that 'Wall•E', 'The Dark Knight', 'Synecdoche, New York', 'Doubt', 'Revolutionary Road', 'In Bruges', and 'Gran Torino' were severely snubbed. That being said, I have a problem with the way the Oscars do their thing.

The Academy must really not like movies. Because if they did, then they wouldn't limit the nominations for Best Picture down to just 5. 

http://www.metacritic.com/film/awards/2008/toptens.shtml

These are all legitimate film critics and their lists vary a lot. Granted, there are some similarities, but that's why I propose this. Why doesn't the Academy give a "seal of approval" instead of a golden statue to an individual. Why don't they nominate as many as they feel appropriate, and then from there take like the best 10% or something and give them 'extra special' awards?

Look at Roger Ebert's top list. He doesn't even bother ranking them. He chose the movies he thought that were the best of the year and put them on a list. He doesn't say which is better or worse, he just gives them his "seal of approval."

I'm not saying I don't believe in competition, but it's like Malcolm Gladwell says in his book Outliers, all you have to be is "good enough". Who is to say that a passion piece like Gran Torino is worse than the 5 movies picked by the Academy? Who is to say that Curious Case of Benjamin Button isn't just Forest Gump all over again? Who is to say that Doubt (a Pulitzer Prize winning play) isn't even good enough to be nominated for anything besides acting (not to hate on acting awards, I just feel bad for the screenwriter).

The Academy is retarded. I guess that's what I am trying to get at. The Academy is retarded and doesn't respect art. They limit films down to the "top 5" and then pick the "top 1".

I think Slumdog Millionaire deserved best editing and best cinematography and nominations for best director and sound stuff. That's about it. It didn't really do anything else that good besides be really "cool" and "stylized."

There is a great history at The Academy Awards. But just because it's history doesn't make it right. Should we have kept slavery just because it was tradition? Surely that's an exaggerated comparison, but I think it's fair to recognize that there is no reason it can't be revolutionized. They already changed up the categories a lot since the start of the ceremony way back when. In fact they just added Best Animated Feature at the beginning of the millennium.

Oh, and with Wall•E, I'm glad that Animated Feature is in it's own category, but like I said I think the whole thing should be a "seal of approval". I mean, Bolt? Bolt was nominated for an Academy Award... and Doubt wasn't? Are you joking me?

Anyway - Wall•E - I think that it should have been nominated for more technical awards. Certainly it's a different craft, but more or less cinematography is the same whether its done digitally or in actuality. What about it's editing? No nomination? And what's with the song? It should have won hands down. This is just getting ridiculous. Last year was an amazing song from Once, this year is a rip-off bollywood song mixed with contemporary dance beats.

And what about the song from The Wrestler? That won the Golden Globe but wasn't even nominated at the Academy Awards. Lame. That was a good song.

Forget the Academy. They are just corrupt studio execs that think they can generate extra money from Slumdog after it get's the "oscar push" as it's called. It happened to American Beauty. It will happen to Slumdog. And the voters at the Academy know it.