• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Oscars animated..why?

Why do "animated" movies have their own category at the Oscars? Shouldn't scifi..comedy...horror all have their categories since, like Animated movies, they could get nominated, but seriously, will never win.

They should have a best picture category where all films compete..and sub-sections. I have thought this for years, and I think its time.

Rob
 
Well Documentaries and foreign films have had their own categories for years and they can still wind up nominated for Best Picture.

I don't agree with Sci-Fi/Horror/etc.. getting separate categories. But I do admit I prefer the way the Golden Globes handles things and separates Comedy and Drama because I feel like the Academy Awards really really neglects comedies way too much.
 
Well Documentaries and foreign films have had their own categories for years and they can still wind up nominated for Best Picture.

I don't agree with Sci-Fi/Horror/etc.. getting separate categories. But I do admit I prefer the way the Golden Globes handles things and separates Comedy and Drama because I feel like the Academy Awards really really neglects comedies way too much.

They also neglect scifi and horror too, if you use that as a benchmark. I think there should be a scifi/fantasy oscar...comedy oscar...horror oscar... Those three categories are seen by a zillion more times people, and every year, scifi/fantasy films are at the top of the box office. DARK CITY/BLADE RUNNER/MATRIX, I could go down the list..all deserved oscars for best 'scifi/fantasy' movie when they came out..

I know why the wont do it. Because more people would be interested in that award category, than yet another battle between Anti/Bush--Gay activists--Mentally challenged--minority issue driven movies-- that seem to fuel the best picture battles every year but hardly anyone really sees.

Rob
 
Well I think there's more guarantee of there being 4-5 excellent animated films in a year than 4-5 excellent sci-fi or horror films (especially given the Academy's standards for excellence). The reality is that sci-fi and horror are generally considered 'lesser' genres by high-brow Hollywood, and I can understand why since most horror movies that come out these days are dreck and science fiction movies are simply not as common (without even taking quality into consideration). "District 9" and "Moon" were both critically acclaimed last year, but I don't think it's likely to get 5 sci-fi movies as prestigious as those in most years.
 
Well I think there's more guarantee of there being 4-5 excellent animated films in a year than 4-5 excellent sci-fi or horror films (especially given the Academy's standards for excellence). The reality is that sci-fi and horror are generally considered 'lesser' genres by high-brow Hollywood, and I can understand why since most horror movies that come out these days are dreck and science fiction movies are simply not as common (without even taking quality into consideration). "District 9" and "Moon" were both critically acclaimed last year, but I don't think it's likely to get 5 sci-fi movies as prestigious as those in most years.

So??? You could make that argument about the best picture category as it is.

Every year there are at least 3-5 good scifi/fantasy movies you could nominate..

Dark knight
Twilight
Ironman...from 2008

Star trek
Avatar
District 9...from 2009

The Wrath of Khan
ET
Poltergiest
Blade Runnder from 1982

Some of those movies listed were actually better than the mainstream movies, IMO, and didn't even get nominated...yet animated movies get a category so PRINCESS AND THE FROG gets nominated but Star Trek Doesn't???

Rob
 
You seem to be really stretching for examples, which proves my point ("Twilight"?!?). But more importantly, even if there are a good number of sci-fi movies in a given year, Academy bias is going to prevent them from getting much recognition. "The Dark Knight" couldn't get a best picture nomination despite being one of the highest grossing movies of all time and one of the most universally praised by critics movies of 2008, and I'm sure that had a lot to do with the simple fact that it was a comic book movie.

"Iron Man" was snubbed in all categories except technical ones for the same reasons. "Twilight" could not have possibly got love from the Academy, because it's a movie with vampires in it. No Star Trek movie ever has a chance of winning anything beyond technical awards. Face it, sci-fi/superhero/horror movies are second class citizens of film to the Academy.

Only Lord of the Rings broke the mould and that's just because so much money, time, and imagination was put into those movies and they made so much dough that they could not be ignored. I think the award for the third one was given more out of respect for what the trilogy accomplished than Academy willingness to recognize quality in them.
 
Animation isn't a genre, it's a medium of filmmaking. It deserves its own category because, like a documentary, it's a different art form made differently than live action narrative films. Science fiction and horror are genres and not mediums. If shot in live action, they really aren't made any differently than other live action movies. So while it may be unfair for the Academy to not always recognize them in the Best Picture category, it's not worth giving them their own category because there generally isn't anything to differentiate them from other live action movies (aside from usually being somewhat heavier on the visual effects, which does have its own category).
 
S. Gomez beat me to it. Animation isn't a genre (though, in practice, it's come to be closely associated in the US with children's films).
 
Why do "animated" movies have their own category at the Oscars? Shouldn't scifi..comedy...horror all have their categories since, like Animated movies, they could get nominated, but seriously, will never win.

The reason for the animated category was political. Back around 1991 or 1992, the Disney animated film Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture. This raised a stink like you wouldn't believe from actors unions and the like, who were fearful of the precedent. After all, who needs to hire flesh and blood actors if all you need are a few people who know how to draw and computer animate, and some people with good voices to read dialogue and sing?

It was a bit of a BS argument, but one that was mentioned a lot. I remember the night of the Oscar telecast and host Billy Crystal made a fairly pointed joke about this fact during his opening song-and-dance which got pretty big applause.

I don't think the animated category was started immediately, but I do believe it was started when the signs began to emerge that there were other animated films (Shrek comes to mind) that had potential for Best Picture nominations.

There was also the school of thought (such supports Robert's comment) that animated films didn't really stand a chance in the category anyway. The year Shrek won Best Animated Feature it would have been up against A Beautiful Mind, Fellowship of the Ring, Moulin Rouge in Best Picture ... it didn't stand a chance. The film that beat Beauty and the Beast was Silence of the Lambs, for frak's sake!

So the question is why not make similar categories for genres? I don't think the filmmakers want that. According to the Wikipedia article on the Animated Feature category (yeah I know it's Wikipedia but I remember reading this elsewhere) the people behind Wall-E were mad that their film -- which a lot of critics felt deserved not only to be nominated but to win Best Picture that year -- was relegated to Best Animated Feature instead. This year, Up took advantage of the 10-nominee Best Picture field but no one expected it to win and it's generally seen as a fluke nomination. Of course it won Animated Feature hands down.

So if the Academy Awards fragmented the genres, OK so it might have meant a chance for Star Trek or District 9 or Avatar to win one. But it still would have been ghettoizing, and it might have reduced their chances of a Best Picture nomination. Also, what is the definition of comedy? Inglourious Basterds is as much a comedy as it is a war film. A film like Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (the Kenneth Branaugh version) -- would it go into Drama? Horror? You could have some films appear in multiple categories, really lessening the impact.

The fact remains, that thanks to the 10-picture category, we had no less than THREE SF/F films nominated: Up, Avatar and District 9. So what if the genre didn't win? That's still a remarkable achievement.

Alex
 
Why do "animated" movies have their own category at the Oscars? Shouldn't scifi..comedy...horror all have their categories since, like Animated movies, they could get nominated, but seriously, will never win.

They should have a best picture category where all films compete..and sub-sections. I have thought this for years, and I think its time.

Rob
They don't make enough sci-fi movies to merit a separate category. We're lucky to see one, maybe two a year, if that. Sometimes there may not be ANY sci-fi releases in a given year. Unless you're counting something like "Transformers." I'm referring to stuff like "Moon." You know, actual sci-fi.
 
Rob, I'm afraid I have to side with S Gomez. Animation is a medium, scifi is a genre. That scifi gets ignored no matter how well done it is-that's a sad state of affairs. If I could change it, I would, but what can you do?
 
As pointed out above, being animated isn't a genre of film. Does it make sense to put, say, "Up" and "The Incredibles" in the same catagory of film? One is an emotional movie about a bitter man coming to grips with being a widower and the regrets he has from unfufiled achievements in youth. Another is about an ex-superhero going through a mid-life crisis and reconnecting with his family/a superhero action movie. Both are very different.

Animated movies are whole other style of film-making, from the way the story is crafted, acted and presented. It deserves it's own catagory.
 
You could always bunch sci-fi, fantasy, horror, musicals, and comedy into one category and call it Genre. There's definitely usually at least five genre films a year that are worth recognition.
 
True, but it's still usually not a very competative category. Films like Kung Fu Panda don't stand a chance, but are nominated to filll out the roster. This year was rather surprising, since all of the nominated films were quite well-made and worthy of the award.
 
You could always bunch sci-fi, fantasy, horror, musicals, and comedy into one category and call it Genre. There's definitely usually at least five genre films a year that are worth recognition.

True, however -technically all films fit into a "genre."
 
It's not even a real contest. It's the OBLIGATORY PIXAR AWARD OF THE YEAR.
Except, y'know, when Shrek won... and Spirited Away... and Wallace and Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit... and Happy Feet... ;)
Well, in two of those years, Pixar didn't have a dog in the race, which I doubt will ever happen again.

I think things are looking up in terms of competition for the Best Animated Film award, now that Disney has its own studio running again and, at least based on their first effort, producing quality films again. Between Disney and its Pixar branch, that's two reliable slots in the minimum of three.

Really, it's a bit perverse that Disney itself doesn't have one of those awards (though that's purely a function of when they started).
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top