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

[Tron Bonne]

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.

No one is denying politics are involved. You keep saying something that's already common knowledge to anyone that's even vaguely aware of how these things work. But do you ever think to wonder why a lot of studios don't bother to throw their support behind these movies? Because it's not something that awards (especially the Oscars) usually picked for a nomination, much less an actual win, so I'd say most of them don't even bother with the effort when they realize how unlikely these movies are to really get any actual wins outside lesser categories.

Probably of the best examples is The Dark Knight. One of the best of 2008, huge box office gross, lots of backing from the studio (most of the screeners were even sent blu-ray copies for the best possibly presentation if memory serves), and it still didn't even get nominations in most of the bigger awards for the Oscars, and didn't win a good portion of those it managed to get nominated for from other award places. So, yeah, if that doesn't show that there's a certain stigma to certain movies, despite politics, I really do not what does

Awards, like the Oscars and Globes, always gravitate towards dramas (and occasionally comedies and romances). That's what's always been nominated and won, because of whatever. Yeah, sure, of course there's politics. Most of us know that. But, come on, we all also know there's a certain stigma to 'genre movies', animation and foreign films for the major Oscars.

 

[Gilpesh]

Like for example, Moon. It dealt with a lot of real drama and if it weren't [blackout]two Sam Rockwells yelling at each other[/blackout] and set on the moon... the Oscars would be eating that **** up.

 

[Evil Twin]

No one is denying politics are involved. You keep saying something that's already common knowledge to anyone that's even vaguely aware of how these things work. But do you ever think to wonder why a lot of studios don't bother to throw their support behind these movies? Because it's not something that awards (especially the Oscars) usually picked for a nomination, much less an actual win, so I'd say most of them don't even bother with the effort when they realize how unlikely these movies are to really get any actual wins outside lesser categories.

Probably of the best examples is The Dark Knight. One of the best of 2008, huge box office gross, lots of backing from the studio (most of the screeners were even sent blu-ray copies for the best possibly presentation if memory serves), and it still didn't even get nominations in most of the bigger awards for the Oscars, and didn't win a good portion of those it managed to get nominated for from other award places. So, yeah, if that doesn't show that there's a certain stigma to certain movies, despite politics, I really do not what does

Awards, like the Oscars and Globes, always gravitate towards dramas (and occasionally comedies and romances). That's what's always been nominated and won, because of whatever. Yeah, sure, of course there's politics. Most of us know that. But, come on, we all also know there's a certain stigma to 'genre movies', animation and foreign films for the major Oscars.

There's a certain stigma, but there's also plenty of blame to go around. Which is why I think that approaching the topic without some sense of nuance isn't really helpful.

Campaigning matters. And there are many reasons that studios don't campaign for certain films. Like money. How many Spring / Summer serious dramas are nominated for Best Picture vs. Fall / Winter serious dramas? Yeah, there's a critical incentive to campaign for lots of good movies, but there's that same incentive plus money to campaign for winter movies. Edit: It certainly didn't hurt that LoTR and AVATAR were winter movies.

And, take MOON for example. MOON is a terrific movie, but very few people saw it in the theater. And when the time came to campaign, Sony decided to back DISTRICT 9 in place of MOON in their Oscar campaigning. And it might have been a smart move on their part because there's the potential that MOON could have siphoned votes from DISTRICT 9 and created an opening for STAR TREK, for example. So, is MOON not getting a nomination because of a stigma or studio politics/strategy?

Heck, part of that might be the message they are receiving from fan boy critics. Last year, all we heard was criticism that the Academy didn't nominate enough popular entertainments. So, this year the Academy nominted Avatar, Distict 9, Up, and Inglourious Basterds. Arguably, the complaints about The Dark Knight made it tougher for Moon as the Academy was apparently looking at popular entertainments.

There's no doubt that genre and comedy efforts have a tougher hurdle to overcome than "serious dramas which give insight on the human condition". There's also very little doubt too that winter films that are fresh in the mind and have an active campaign behind have a better chance of getting nominated too, regardless of genre.

I'm not particularly a fan of the 10 film expansion, but that should pretty much assure that some of the more popular genre efforts are nominated on a pretty regular basis from this time forward.

Edit: It certainly would help though if the critics play a bigger role in shining a spotlight on genre films. They, theoretically, don't have an agenda other than calling out the best films. The National Board of Review is typically the first one out of the gate and they did a reasonable job this year. Moon didn't make their top 10 though, although it did make it as mention in their top independent films and directorial debut categories.

 

[Tron Bonne]

Yeah, you more or less re-packaged half of what I said, and injected with another big dose of this 'politics, politics, politics!' thing you keep repeating. Is anyone denying there's politics involved? I don't think so, not really seen anyone say something like that. Anyway, I'm not going to bother arguing this any further; I really shouldn't have this long. Anyone who knows anything about the Oscars knows there's a stigma to certain genres, regardless of politics and strategy, and that's all I've been saying.

Anyway, this all flew off from the original point. Someone said that they thought one of the main reasons we don't see sci-fi nominated is because the 'vast majority' weren't Best Picture quality and that somehow disproves there's a stigma. Which I think is completely and totally inaccurate.

 

[Evil Twin]

Way to twist an argument.

My argument is that yes there is a stigma, but

1. There's less than one sci-fi movie a year that really even has an argument

2. There are other factors at work, timing being one. Competition being another.

And I really think the timing idea can't just be ignored. Go back to 2001, how many of the sci-fi movies met the following criteria:

1. Critically acclaimed at the time of release;
2. Financially successful relative to cost; and
3. Released during "awards season".

That will tell you more about the size of the stigma than claiming Stigma! Stigma! Stigma! So, yes, I agree there's a stigma. How big is it? And how much of that is the studio's own doing?

As a counter example, I'll note that when you release critically acclaimed and popular fantasy or sci-fi movie during "awards season" it has been noticed lately. Lord of the Rings, with 3 Best Picture nominations, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, and Avatar from the last decade. Perhaps not coincidentally, all with December release dates.

But, really, we should go back through the individual candidates and see what were the inexplicable oversights vs. just crying stigma. For example, did the stigma do in Jurassic Park or did Stephen Spielberg backing Schindler's List do in Jurassic Park as a candidate? Did the stigma do in Brazil, or did studio politics? Did the stigma do in BTTF? The Matrix? The Empire Strikes Back? Robocop? T2? How many really had a shot but were shot down because of the stigma?

An examination of individual cases is more likely to tell you something useful than throwing a blanket over everything regardless if it fits or not. Heck, the successful cases tell you that a December release certainly can't hurt.

And, is it purely because it's sci-fi or fantasy in some cases? Given that the Academy is made up of a diverse group, how much does an aversion to gore affect the edgier entries?

 

[Tron Bonne]

EDIT: Nevermind, said I was done with, going to leave at that.

 

[Evil Twin]

Just because, here are the Hugo Award winners for Best Dramatic Presentation and Best Dramatic Presentation Long Form since 1968, so it at least gives some sort of idea of what the actual contenders were.

• 1969: 2001: A Space Odyssey

• 1970: News coverage of Apollo 11

• 1971: (no award)

• 1972: A Clockwork Orange

• 1973: Slaughterhouse-Five

• 1974: Sleeper

• 1975: Young Frankenstein

• 1976: A Boy and His Dog

• 1977: (no award)

• 1978: Star Wars

• 1979: Superman

• 1980: Alien

• 1981: Star Wars V: The Empire Strikes Back

• 1982: Raiders of the Lost Ark

• 1983: Blade Runner

• 1984: Star Wars VI: Return of the Jedi

• 1985: 2010

• 1986: Back to the Future

• 1987: Aliens

• 1988: The Princess Bride

• 1989: Who Framed Roger Rabbit

• 1990: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

• 1991: Edward Scissorhands

• 1992: Terminator 2: Judgment Day

• 1993: Star Trek: The Next Generation: "The Inner Light"

• 1994: Jurassic Park

• 1995: Star Trek: The Next Generation: "All Good Things..."

• 1996: Babylon 5: "The Coming of Shadows"

• 1997: Babylon 5: "Severed Dreams"

• 1998: Contact

• 1999: The Truman Show

• 2000: Galaxy Quest

• 2001: Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

• 2002: The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

2003: The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

2004: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

2005: The Incredibles

2006: Serenity

2007: Pan's Labyrinth

2008: Stardust

2009: WALL-E

Obviously some television is mixed in there that confuses things, but from 2001 to 2009 there are 4 Best Picture nominees, including 1 winner, 2 winners of Best Animated Films, and 1 Best Foreign Language Film nominee and multiple winner of awards. Only Serenity and Stardust didn't garner any attention from the Academy.

Hardly perfect, but certainly suggestive that the stigma isn't as strong as it's been. Probably because Star Wars is over 30 years old now.

Year by Year:

1972 - A Clockwork Orange was nominated. Losing to The French Connection is nothing to be ashamed of.

1974 - Yeah, you can make a case for Sleeper. You can also make a case for Serpico, Last Tango in Paris, and Serpico of which none were nominated for Best Picture. Worth noting that genre picture The Exorcist was nominated.

1975- You can make a case for Young Frankenstein, although it did get a Screenplay nomination. Didn't help that Blazing Saddles was also a 1974 film. 3 of the BP nominees are classics in The Godfather Part II, Chinatown, and The Conversation, although Lenny and especially The Towering Inferno are not. Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore and Day for Night were other notable films.

1976 - A Boy and His Dog isn't that good. Jaws was nominated for Best Picture.

1978 - Star Wars was nominated. Close Encounters was also something considered. Obviously one of the most famous horse races in Oscar history.

1979 - Superman could have been nominated. The fantasy Heaven Can Wait was up for a bunch of awards including Best Picture.

1980 - Alien could have been nominated, although the BP nominees of Kramer vs. Kramer, Breaking Away, Apocalypse Now!, All that Jazz, and Norma Rae certainly is pretty strong.

1981 - ESB certainly could have been nominated. Certainly it's a better movie than Tess. The other 4 nominees are pretty stout with Raging Bull, Ordinary People, Coal Miner's Daughter, and The Elephant Man rounding out the group.

1982 - Raiders of the Lost Ark was nominated. Probably should have won, although it took a long time for Spielberg to be accepted.

1983- E.T. was nominated instead of Blade Runner.

1984 - ROTJ probably didn't deserve a BP nomination.

1985 - 2010 didn't deserve a BP nomination.

1986 - BTTF certainly could have been nominated in a weak year. As could have Brazil and The Purple Rose of Cairo. And Kurosawa's Ran.

1987 - Sure Aliens could have been nominated. Probably wouldn't have beat Platoon or Hannah and Her Sisters, but certainly is a better movie than The Mission.

1988 - I'm fine with A Princess Bride not being a nominee.

1989 - Who Framed Roger Rabbit certainly is a notable omission. Big could also have contended.

1990 - Last Crusade or Batman certainly had cases, although I don't think either are top 5. Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing which wasn't nominated either and stands as a more glaring omission.

1991 - Edward Scissorhands has a case. The fantasy Ghost was nominated.

1992 - T2 could have been nominated, although it was competing with genre titles like Silence of the Lambs and Disney's Beauty and the Beast.

1994 - Jurassic Park certainly was notable, although obviously Schindler's List is the one that Spielberg campaigned behind.

1998 - Eh, Contact isn't a top 5 movie for me.

1999 - Yeah the Truman Show is kind of a surprising snub. It wouldn't have won, Saving Private Ryan and the Weinstein Shakespeare in Love campaign would have beaten it, but certainly it could have been nominated.

2000 - There were other notable movies besides Galaxy Quest, The Matrix for instance. Obviously The Matrix could have been nominated. And The Sixth Sense was nominated.

Obviously the Hugos aren't the whole story, but they tell us something about sci-fi / fantasy. From that list, I'd say that ESB, Aliens, BTTF, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and The Truman Show are the ones with a real grievance. Obviously it's not complete, but those are the ones I'd start on first.