Well, we’ll see if anyone else can step up.

Second, I think Michael Clayton WAS better than Bourne Ultimatum (even if I have Bourne as my #2 movie of the year), but I definitely think it should have been nominated for Best Picture.

The pick for Atonement is what screwed it for me…if that had been Bourne, then you get a decent mix. But otherwise, it’s some boring movies up there. That’s why I had hoped Juno would win, just to shake things up.

The Bourne Ultimatum was an action movie, yes, but it was also one of the best action-spy films in a decade and I wish it had been rewarded for more than just sound editing.

The truth is, we do see a LOT more hit movies getting nominated these days than we have seen in the past. You can’t forget that Forrest Gump, Titanic, and Lord of the Rings: ROTK all were nominated and WON Best Picture.

The problem with the process is the nominations come from the members of the Academy who are still, largely, older Hollywood. As these people start dying off (I’m sorry if I sound crass), and new members are taken in, we will continue to see a change in the types of movies that are nominated.

But, truthfully, there will always be a soft spot at the Oscars for a certain time of drama in the Best Picture category. There’s a sense that the Best Picture has to live up to historical standards and nominating just any old movie that made a ton of money won’t cut it.

Ever notice its always only dramas (and not always the best ones). Why not one type of movie from every category competing against each other, a drama, a comedy, an action, a horror, and a musical with lots of singing for Mo. Competition would have everyone tuning in to see, did we laugh more or we had good dramas? Its not that this years slate were awful movies, but where was all the awesomeness? Let me give an example…
Bourne Ultimatum, look, this won 3 oscars as it is, 2 of them were for sound (which I’m not sure how it beat Transformers or any big sci-fi movie, unless the coin came down heads..), at any rate compare Bourne to Michael Clayton. Michael Clayton was an ok movie (thats right, ok, not pant dropping awesome), I doubt anyone walked out of it saying “MAN, when is the sequel coming out!!”. You didnt think about it afterwards if at all, but the Bourne series held suspense, action, drama and a much intricated intense story than Micahel Clayton. I’m not sure how Clooney was even nominated. He didnt make me think he was playing another character. He was onscreen trying to seemingly make a point he never did.
Although the movie was still good, was it better than Bourne? I dont think so, and I think many others wouldnt think so, and quite frankly Matt Damon did a much better job than Clooney did in making you believe he was someone else. Heck Sarah Silverman isnt singing about Geroge Clooney is she?!?
So why the snub of nominations? Why not have really good movies that actually earn money that get nominated OR add movies from each category to stir up some interest.
That my friends is how the Capn would solve the low ratings…