JEANMARIE TAN:

Every year, the Oscars receive flak for being irrelevant and out of touch.

So without fail, the Academy will introduce features designed to boost the show's waning appeal and shut its naysayers up.

But back in February, you could really smell the desperation.

There was a younger, hotter host (Hugh Jackman).

As if the Oscars didn't overrun enough, five past winners in each acting category appeared onstage to give lengthy, glowing praise to the individual nominees.

And most inexplicably of all, the fluffy likes of Zac Efron and Vanessa Hudgens performed in a song-and-dance tribute to musicals.

More change is coming next year, where there'll be 10 Best Picture nominees instead of the usual five.

And about time too.

If nothing else, a bigger pool seems like the best way to get more crowd-pleasing, commercially successful blockbusters - not to mention documentaries, foreign-language and animated films - on the ballot for the big prize.

Which means we should probably see Pixar's Up and even sci-fi fave Star Trek making the 2010 list.

More suspense

With votes being spread across 10 nominees, there is less chance of a sweep and hopefully more suspense.

And with five extra nominees to showcase during the telecast, it's the perfect chance to axe those boring technical categories that take up a chunk of airtime - but really is toilet break time for the rest of us.

Oscar's new populist slant aims to attract the viewership of the masses who actually went out to watch movies like Up and Star Trek.

After all, there was record viewership when Titanic and The Lord Of The Rings: The Return Of The King won Best Picture in 1997 and 2003 respectively.

Then you had the 2008 ceremony - where No Country For Old Men won Best Picture - which was the lowest-rated telecast ever.

When cancellation is a very real possibility, I'd rather have a longer show than no show at all.

So what if it drags on for five hours?

Anyway, it's only once a year.

And why stop at Best Picture? The Academy should consider expanding the acting and directing categories as well.

Can you imagine how crowded with Hollywood A-listers the red carpet will be? Only good news for stargazers and fashionistas.

So if it's the younger audiences who are to be aggressively courted, then the Academy shouldn't freak out if this scenario happens: 'And the Best Picture Oscar goes to... New Moon!'

Because if Robert Pattinson turns up, we'll be there.

JONATHAN ROBERTS:

So, drastic changes for the Oscars? Five best film nominations gets bumped up to 10.

Is this the golden opportunity for Transformers and New Moon to take home a statuette?

Or maybe its a purely cynical ploy to try and keep their ratings up and to sell some more DVDs with that coveted and highly lucrative 'Nominated for..' cover sticker.

Two key things happened at the last year's Oscars.

One was the realisation that getting a host who isn't snide or sarcastic can attract more people to watch. Hugh Jackman was very entertaining and the ratings went up by 16 per cent.

The bottom line is that the Academy Awards have an image problem.

And let's face it, the ceremony itself is a real drag. And it takes itself incredibly seriously. So if a few more popular choices look like standing a chance, maybe it will up the ratings further.

Well, it's a theory. But in a ceremony that is already flabby with time, adding more nominations to a category is never going to help.

The bigger thing was that The Dark Knight, the biggest film of 2008, was almost completely ignored.

And it's hard to imagine Heath Ledger's Oscar, though deserved, would have been awarded had he not died.

The Academy hates anything but the mildest of fantasy films regardless of how well made they are. But make an 'issue' film and you are in.

Yes, Oscar loves the worthy films. It's why any old actor that cartoons mental illness or a straight actor playing a gay character, is classed above a comedian that can deliver lines or execute pratfalls to make an entire cinema convulse in laughter.

Questionable choices

Acting is held above direction.

That is why movies that are basically filmed plays will beat films that truly exploit. Films where camera can take in the audience, such as The Dark Knight.

Despite some solid decisions, No Country For Old Men and Slumdog Millionaire, some best film winners in the last decade have raised more than a few eyebrows.

The Departed was an okay remake of Infernal Affairs. But is seen to have only won out of the Academy's guilt for snubbing director Martin Scorcese for three decades.

Likewise Lord Of The Rings won for its weaker third instalment, a win that looked like a begrudging 'Fine... Well done for making so much money' gesture over the film's actual merit.

The problem is not so much the ultimate winners but the runners-up. The past shortlists and snublists make for damning evidence. So many well made films have been snubbed for lesser, more sentimental and yes, more worthy 'issue' films.

For instance, it is a crime that Pixar is continually relegated to the Best Animation slot.

But while The Academy may be drenched in bling, it wants the world to know it cares, you know.

Rather than expanding to 10 nominations the voters should just open up a bit more. Lose the snobbery and vote for what is really enjoyable and well made.

Entertaining does not mean idiot trash.

Though if the Transformers sequel does make the list, it could be time to shut the whole thing down.

This article was first published in The New Paper.