Have 'Avatar' And 'District 9' Shattered The Oscars' Sci-Fi Stigma?

[Paroxysm]

http://www.mtv.com/movies/news/articles/1631190/story.jhtml

In the grand scheme of the Academy Awards' 82-year history, it's no secret that comedies are typically overlooked on Oscar night. But if that's the case, then this week's surprising "District 9" Best Picture nomination — teamed with the likely domination of Oscar favorite "Avatar" — reminded us that sci-fi takes a close second in the race for Oscar irrelevance.

What do "The Empire Strikes Back," "The Matrix," "Terminator 2: Judgment Day," "Alien," "Back to the Future" and "2001: A Space Odyssey" have in common? Each are among the top-rated science-fiction films of all time, as rated by hundreds of thousands of fans on IMDb, and not a single one earned a Best Picture nomination. In fact, if you don't include such debatable sci-fi fare as "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button," the genre hasn't been represented on Oscar night since "The Lord of the Rings" films broke through at the beginning of the new century. Go back further, and the last true sci-fi nominee was "E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial" in 1982.

Yet, science fiction is arguably the most popular genre in Hollywood, ranging from such enduring franchises as "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" to "The Terminator" and "Transformers." With such an unfortunate history of awards voters looking down their noses at the realms of aliens, monsters and otherworldly drama that gave birth to writers like H.G. Wells, Ray Bradbury and Arthur C. Clarke, it makes Tuesday's boundary-breaking nominations all the more impressive.

"Avatar" is now not only the top-grossing film of all time, but has balanced that commercial triumph with nine nominations — a stunning achievement, considering that most filmmakers feel they must choose between "commercial" and "awards-worthy" fare. The same can be said for "District 9," which earned four nominations, overcoming the stigma of not only being a sci-fi film, but one made for a mere $30 million with no stars whatsoever.

"It was interesting and much more complex than the usual science-fiction film," producer Peter Jackson — who knows something about breaking the Oscar sci-fi stigma — said of the first time he read the "District 9"script, insisting that its financial limitations are what made the film so good. "And it's not based on a comic; it's not based on a remake or a TV show. It's very original, which today is rare. For some reason, we've all forgotten how to be original."

As sci-fi fans know, however, what makes the genre so great is how it can take us millions of miles away, then use alternate realities to teach us significant lessons about our own world — and both "District 9" and "Avatar" continue in that proud tradition. "There is a theme about how we see others, and how we see other cultures," Cameron explained to MTV News. "And if we could see the world through their eyes, instead of through our eyes, we might behave differently; if a bully could see their victim through their eyes, they'd behave differently and vice-versa. So, the film is very much about seeing, perceiving and getting on the other side of that cultural barrier. ... 'Avatar' is very much about getting outside your own bubble of reality and seeing the world differently."

 

[Max J Power]

It might be too early to tell if the stigma has been broken. Most consider 2009 to be a pretty weak movie year (though on the whole I've liked it better than 2008), and I don't know how sci-fi films would fare in better years like 2006 or 2007.

I think part of it has to with the Academy having to prove it will nominate popular genre films after last year's high number of fan complaints (particularly over the The Dark Knight and WALL-E not being nominated for Best Picture) and low TV ratings.

I highly doubt District 9 would have been nominated if they only took 5 nominees. It got 3 other nominations in its own right, but the Best Picture nomination doesn't seem as special when there are 10 nominees (I'm sure it doesn't help that I haven't seen the movie either).

 

[Tron Bonne]

I think part of it has to with the Academy having to prove it will nominate popular genre films after last year's high number of fan complaints (particularly over the The Dark Knight and WALL-E not being nominated for Best Picture) and low TV ratings.

I highly doubt District 9 would have been nominated if they only took 5 nominees. It got 3 other nominations in its own right, but the Best Picture nomination doesn't seem as special when there are 10 nominees (I'm sure it doesn't help that I haven't seen the movie either).

Pretty much says it all right there. In one degree it has broken that sci-fi stigma, but it's basically just a shroud they want to put over everyone's eyes. As far as D9 goes anyway. Avatar was a pretty political choice, I think. Regardless of quality, I highly doubt it would be racking all those major nominations if not for Cameron and it's box office gross.

Overall, the same stuff that would win is still going to win. This is basically just kind of a nice gesture, but I think it ends there

 

[Spider-Fan]

The stigma is not broken. The field of competitors got expanded to 10, so of these two, only Avatar would have been nominated for BP is it was a 5 film field. Avatar only got its nomination due to it being A - a Cameron film, B - Because it was uber huge, and C - It had ground breaking effects. If the field of Oscar contenders was 10, many other Sci-Fi films that didn't get nominated in the 5 film format would have been nominated.

Their nominations change nothing. 2009 was a weak year for films, and the Best Picture Nominee label has been watered down due to the expanded field.

 

[Gilpesh]

I would agree with this thread if best picture nominations were still only five... and in addition to District 9 and Avatar being nominated, Moon would be also.

If that had happened, the stigma would be over.

 

[Bim]

I dont think the stigma has been broken at all.

Gilpesh: i would have to agree with that! t:

 

[Motown Marvel]

was there ever even a stigma? or are the vast majority of sci-fi films just not best picture quality? part of me thinks its the latter.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Then part of you is pretty wrong

 

[Spider-Fan]

Even the Sci-Fi films worthy of winning BP at the Oscars got snubbed for other things. My best example would be 2001: A Space Odyssey. That is probably the pinnacle of Sci-Fi in regard to Oscar quality films (and I would say, prob the best Sci-Fi film ever made IMO also), but it lost as the Oscars. If a film as good as 2001 can't win BP, then how is there no stigma?

 

[Evil Twin]

My understanding is that 2001 got kind of a mixed reception at the time, with a lot of people not knowing what to make of it. Although it certainly helped the genre get taken more seriously. Kubrick's followup A Clockwork Orange, otoh, got good reviews and was nominated for Best Picture.

Blade Runner was a disappointment critically and commercially at the time. And didn't make it's reputation until it hit cable and home video.

Since 1968, how many science fiction movies were truly Best Picture nominee worthy anyhow that weren't nominated? Besides Blade Runner, which took a while for it's reputation to grow, you have Alien, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Sleeper, The Empire Strikes Back, The Thing (which was a financial disappointment in 1982), Star Trek II, Back to the Future, Brazil (released in butcherd form by the studio), Aliens, Robocop, T2, 12 Monkeys, The Matrix, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and The Prestige as the really notable ones with strong positive critical and audience reaction before this year. Now, I agree that there still is a stigma, but there's also a lack of real high profile candidates at work too.

 

[Tron Bonne]

My understanding is that 2001 got kind of a mixed reception at the time, with a lot of people not knowing what to make of it. Although it certainly helped the genre get taken more seriously. Kubrick's followup A Clockwork Orange, otoh, got good reviews and was nominated for Best Picture.

Blade Runner was a disappointment critically and commercially at the time. And didn't make it's reputation until it hit cable and home video.

Since 1968, how many science fiction movies were truly Best Picture nominee worthy anyhow that weren't nominated? Besides Blade Runner, which took a while for it's reputation to grow, you have Alien, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Sleeper, The Empire Strikes Back, The Thing (which was a financial disappointment in 1982), Star Trek II, Back to the Future, Brazil (released in butcherd form by the studio), Aliens, Robocop, T2, 12 Monkeys, The Matrix, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and The Prestige as the really notable ones with strong positive critical and audience reaction before this year. Now, I agree that there still is a stigma, but there's also a lack of real high profile candidates at work too.

Yet, you just listed quite a few of them Also, pretty sure the edited version of Brazil was released later, on television (the version released in theaters was a 131 version supervised by Gilliam). Plus, there's plenty of other great sci-fi films, outside the listed ones, that deserved nomination just as much as what does get nominated. One of the problems with Sci-fi is it seems great sci-fi films tend to be ahead of their time and have to go through rediscovery (usually through first being a cult classic) before they seem to start getting the recongination they deserve

 

[Evil Twin]

Yet, you just listed quite a few of them Also, pretty sure the edited version of Brazil was released later, on television (the version released in theaters was a 131 version supervised by Gilliam). Plus, there's plenty of other great sci-fi films, outside the listed ones, that deserved nomination just as much as what does get nominated. One of the problems with Sci-fi is it seems great sci-fi films tend to be ahead of their time and have to go through rediscovery (usually through first being a cult classic) before they seem to start getting the recongination they deserve

Either way, given the infighting, the studio wasn't campaigning on behalf of Gilliam and it's not the most accessible work, which is a problem for some sci-fi.

You'll have to name the "plenty more". Certainly there have been good sci-fi films beyond that, but how many could really make a claim for top 5 of the year? We're probably looking at less than 2 dozen films over 40 years, many that weren't even that well received initially.

Not to mention, a lot of these films tend to come out in the Summer. Summer films getting a nomination has been a problem for a long while.

None of which is to say that there isn't a stigma, but there are also other factors at work. Heck, on a percentage basis, I don't even know if sci-fi does worse as a genre than comedy considering that there are dozens of high profile comedies every year.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Either way, given the infighting, the studio wasn't campaigning on behalf of Gilliam and it's not the most accessible work, which is a problem for some sci-fi.

You'll have to name the "plenty more". Certainly there have been good sci-fi films beyond that, but how many could really make a claim for top 5 of the year? We're probably looking at less than 2 dozen films over 40 years, many that weren't even that well received initially.

Not to mention, a lot of these films tend to come out in the Summer. Summer films getting a nomination has been a problem for a long while.

None of which is to say that there isn't a stigma, but there are also other factors at work. Heck, on a percentage basis, I don't even know if sci-fi does worse as a genre than comedy considering that there are dozens of high profile comedies every year.

Well, I'm excluding the political and box office aspect of these award shows; I'm going by what I think deserves to have been nominated, whether they pulled in money or had the respective studios throwing money out for them. And I'm not going to go about naming all the others, just do some research and watch more from the genre for yourself

 

[Spider-Fan]

My understanding is that 2001 got kind of a mixed reception at the time, with a lot of people not knowing what to make of it. Although it certainly helped the genre get taken more seriously. Kubrick's followup A Clockwork Orange, otoh, got good reviews and was nominated for Best Picture.

Blade Runner was a disappointment critically and commercially at the time. And didn't make it's reputation until it hit cable and home video.

Since 1968, how many science fiction movies were truly Best Picture nominee worthy anyhow that weren't nominated? Besides Blade Runner, which took a while for it's reputation to grow, you have Alien, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Sleeper, The Empire Strikes Back, The Thing (which was a financial disappointment in 1982), Star Trek II, Back to the Future, Brazil (released in butcherd form by the studio), Aliens, Robocop, T2, 12 Monkeys, The Matrix, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and The Prestige as the really notable ones with strong positive critical and audience reaction before this year. Now, I agree that there still is a stigma, but there's also a lack of real high profile candidates at work too.

You just listed a bunch, and if Blade Runner's DC had been the theatrical version, you could have added that to the list. A Clockwork Orange did get nominated (again, lost).

2001 got mixed reviews, but so did The Reader when it came out. Yet, that got a BP nom. Why?

Great Sci-Fi films can't win Oscars for Best Picture. They can only hope to get nominated. That is the glass ceiling for the genre, and it is wrong. Great dramas win. Great action films have won. Only category that has a similar stigma is animation, and that was given its own category so the Oscars could look down upon them and no one even say anything.

 

[Evil Twin]

Well, I'm excluding the political and box office aspect of these award shows; I'm going by what I think deserves to have been nominated, whether they pulled in money or had the respective studios throwing money out for them. And I'm not going to go about naming all the others, just do some research and watch more from the genre for yourself

That's great, but reality is that politics, box office, and time of year does play a part in what gets nominated. Always has. For every genre of film. Heck, for the 70s, 80s, and 90s the Oscars had a secondary purpose of being an inducement to get people to see films STILL IN THEATERS at the time. Hence why films that had already completed their runs in the Summer have historically had a very difficult time of getting a nomination. It made more financial sense for studios to push films still in theaters.

I've watched plenty of sci-fi over the years. Like every genre there aren't that many that have a legitimate claim for top 5 of the year. And sometimes they compete with themselves.

Take 1982, E.T. was nominated. Other nominees included Gandhi, The Verdict, and Tootsie which all have maintained good reputations over time. The fifth nominee was The Missing which is still regarded as a good film, but probably the only real vulnerable choice. And then you have Blade Runner (which flopped commercially and critically), Star Trek II (which had the sequel stigma attached), The Thing (which flopped commercially and wasn't embraced for a few years as people flocked to E.T.). It was unlikely that more than one was going to get a nomination in the first place. Add to that competition like Sophie's Choice, and Das Boot (nominated for Best Director), and I think it's a stretch to say that there was any real snubbing going on.

You can make a case for Jurassic Park in 1993. However, it's clear that Spielberg rallied his support behind his other film, Schindler's List. Probably rightly.

For 1999, the genre effort The Sixth Sense got the support that might have gone to The Matrix.

Many people like The Abyss. But the version people really like is the expanded home video version, not the theatrical version with the bad ending. That didn't deserve much of anything.

It also doesn't help that many sci-fi films aren't really actor driven. The actor's guild is still the biggest branch of the academy and it's still fairly difficult for a film to get a best picture nomination without at least one performance that's considered among the best of the year. It's a bias, but it's there. How many sci-fi films are as strong in their dialogue and acting as they are in special effects and art direction?

 

[Max J Power]

My understanding is that 2001 got kind of a mixed reception at the time, with a lot of people not knowing what to make of it. Although it certainly helped the genre get taken more seriously. Kubrick's followup A Clockwork Orange, otoh, got good reviews and was nominated for Best Picture.

2001 did get nominated for Best Director and Best Original Screenplay, so the Academy did give it some recognition at the time, even though critics in general may not have realized its importance.

 

[Tron Bonne]

That's great, but reality is that politics, box office, and time of year does play a part in what gets nominated. Always has. For every genre of film. Heck, for the 70s, 80s, and 90s the Oscars had a secondary purpose of being an inducement to get people to see films STILL IN THEATERS at the time. Hence why films that had already completed their runs in the Summer have historically had a very difficult time of getting a nomination. It made more financial sense for studios to push films still in theaters.

I never said they didn't; I'm well aware of the mass amounts of politics behind these things and everything you say, but like I said, I'm not talking about that. It's irrelevant to the point, in my opinion

And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the quality of the films. I think there's more than plenty that deserve top 5 spots for their respective year, at least as much as what was actually nominated

 

[Diamondhead]

What!
the Abyss didn't do it!?

 

[Diamondhead]

at least now I known know that any number started with 72 at the begining also means judgment day.

 

[Gilpesh]

I am surprised how little Moon talk there is in here. As that is the biggest example of a sci-fi stigma... as not even Sam Rockwell got recognized.

 

[The Navigator]

Seriously? He was great in that.

 

[Gilpesh]

Yeah. But he wasn't nominated for an Oscar.

 

[The Navigator]

What a load. One more reason the Oscars are meaningless.

 

[Evil Twin]

It would have helped if the studio had actually campaigned for MOON. Or even sent out screeners.

Which is part of the reason that I think it's more complicated than stating there's a stigma involved. There's plenty of politics involved, much of it involving studios backing different movies.

 

[gwynplaine]

^ Good Point.