The 10-nominee slate was introduced with the 2010 awards with the intent of making room for more popular or blockbuster movies, as well as increasing viewership of the broadcast.
But this has been a failed experiment -- viewership is continuing to trend downwards, and very few of the nominated movies during this era seem to fit the definition of "popular".
Only 6 movies grossed more than $300M domestically in 2025.
A Minecraft Movie
Lilo & Stitch
Superman
Jurassic World Rebirth
Zootopia 2
Wicked: For Good
Of these, only two of the seemed to be anywhere near a possible Best Picture nomination (Zootopia 2 and Wicked For Good) but neither of them made it. To me, this shows that the nomination process is not working to recognize these movies.
There is also a systematic flaw with Best Picture. The other awards that are traditionally associated with Best Picture (specifically Editing, Cinematography, and Screenplay) are still at five s****. So a BP nominee is already at a disadvantage if it does not receive a corresponding nomination in the other categories.
It would also help shorten the show (by a bit) by not having to recognize all the nominees with film clips.
The Oscars were just barely two weeks ago and already I can't remember all 10 Best Picture nominees.
F1 and Sinners were both big hits. Marty Supreme did pretty well too. Not sure why you made your arbitrary box office cutoff so high.
I also think expanding to 10 nominees has allowed some smaller movies to gain exposure to larger audiences. I'm sure a lot of people saw Sentimental Value, the Secret Agent, and Hamnet that otherwise wouldn't have sought them out.
24
Individual_Rip_54Mar 27, 2026
+6
I wouldn’t have seen Sentimental value if it wasn’t nominated for an Oscar. And I loved that movie
6
mikeyfreshhMar 27, 2026
+3
Check out The Worst Person in the World if you haven't seen it. Same writer/director and star. That one is even better, imo.
3
Individual_Rip_54Mar 27, 2026
+2
I watched it specifically because I liked sentimental value! That’s why you stay at ten
2
itsathrowawayduhhhhhMar 27, 2026
+2
I hadn’t even heard of it until the Oscar’s lol
2
jethropenistei-Mar 27, 2026
+1
It’s a very flawed methodology to go by box office numbers in the age of streaming, but so is prohibiting films that get digital release before theatrical and diversity requirements.
Or just the idea of judging art, especially of different genres, as if there is a meritocratic, objective definition of “best”.
1
mikeyfreshhMar 27, 2026
+1
Netflix gets movies nominated every year. Frankenstein was a streaming only movie for pretty much everybody outside a handful of major cities. And those diversity requirements are written in such a way that virtually every major release will meet them by default. Those rules are essentially just virtue signaling and don't actually disqualify any movies.
1
jethropenistei-Mar 27, 2026
+1
Netflix does the theatrical release before the online release for a reason.
Theatrical Run: A seven-day commercial run in one of six qualifying U.S. cities is required. For Best Picture, this expands to a 10-market release in the top 50 U.S. markets (or international equivalent) for the 97th Oscars.
Excluded Films: Content released on television or online before a theatrical run is not eligible.
1
tetoffensMar 27, 2026
+1
Eh, diversity requirements don't really matter for the end product we see. You could make a film where every actor is a white straight male and get nominated. Essentially every movie these days meets the diversity requirements as you can qualify solely on diversity in crew positions and people on the business side of the film. It was meant to create jobs for certain groups in general, not necessarily in a way that has to effect what is on screen.
There are 5 categories for the diversity requirements. You need to meet 3 of the 5. Only 1 of the 5 has to do with cast. No film has to have diversity in what we see on screen to meet the qualifications. It's kind of silly to complain that the person who does the lighting or does contracts for distribution details is "diverse." It doesn't make a difference in what we as viewers see.
1
rileymacraeMar 27, 2026
+6
10 gives 5 extra films a huge boost. Literally every nominated best picture film is seen by many more people than it otherwise would be.
F1 made $630M+ last year. Top ten in the world.
Eliminating the other five films probably relegates each to forgotten in most cases, but just because they are nominated they are more valuable for steamers for years.
For an industry struggling to reach audiences and filmmakers who often need financial success to justify their next project, it seems like a win-win for pretty much everyone involved.
6
Adequate_ImagesMar 27, 2026
+4
Even at ten there are worthy movies that don’t make the cut.
I like it the way it is now.
4
VangaelisMar 27, 2026
+5
Best is not for “popular” movies. Never has been.
5
Ready_Corgi462Mar 27, 2026
+2
The nomination system isn’t “failing” because they didn’t nominate Wicked: For Good and Minecraft. Those movies weren’t good enough. The idea isn’t that they’d nominate movies that make the most money. The idea is to stop shutting out the blockbuster-style movies that are…actually good….because they are NEVER going to swap out prestige dramas in their place.
We are talking things like Barbie, Black Panther, Mad Max: Fury Road, Get Out and even Dune / Dune II potentially not being nominated under the 5 nomination system. I don’t know if you are just young or something, but there was a time when these noms maybe wouldn’t have happened and that time was my entire life up until 2010. If you can’t handle Zootopia 2 not being nominated, I’m not sure that you’d handle Mad Max not being nominated very well.
They likely would also stop nominating as many foreign language films - Sentimental Value, I’m Still Here, Drive My Car, Secret Agent all likely wouldn’t have been nominated. And that’s a shame, because they are great movies and the nominations help get them seen. 18 best picture nominees were foreign language films. TEN of those were in the last 16 years - compared against only 8 in the history of the Academy pre-2010.
Also - you seem to misunderstand the “advantage” of the other categories. Being nominated for Best Editing is not driving the Academy to vote a movie for Best Picture. The movie that ultimately wins Best Picture inherently HAS enough good will to earn nominations by the cinematography, editing, writing branches. This unilateral support to get it nominated and win in multiple categories is just proof they think it’s the Best Picture. It is a PREDICTOR not a DRIVER. You’re viewing it backwards.
2
imbusywatchingtvMar 27, 2026
+1
Viewership has nothing to do with the number of nominations. It most likely has to do with the types of movies being nominated that have a chance to win. F1 was nominated but everyone knew it had zero chance.
The problem is not many people go to the theaters to see these nominated movies. When they do eventually see them on streaming (because they were nominated) the Oscars already took place. The only reason I saw One Battle After Another was because it was on HBO Max.
I love watching movies and love going to the movie theater, but not every movie is worthy of being in theaters. Unfortunately, most of the Oscar nominated movies fall into that category for me and probably for most people too, when you look at their box office numbers.
1
Hot_Coffey13Mar 28, 2026
+1
honestly the 10 nominees thing has always felt like a way to pretend they care about blockbusters while still giving it to the same artsy films every year.
1
NYChockey14Mar 27, 2026
-1
I think moving to 10 was purely a marketing gimmick. So that people could slap “nominated for best picture” on the cover. Yes I’d be in favor to limiting BP
16 Comments