SCIFI's best picture...when?

[The Borgified Corpse]

Star Wars or Close Encounters of the Third Kind should have won.

While I'd agree that Star Wars was a game changer, I can't agree with Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I never would have thought it possible but someone made a sci-fi movie even more boring than 2001!

And Return of the King's win not to mention Godfather II showed a sequel wouldn't be disqualified.

For what it's worth, The Silence of the Lambs was the sequel to Manhunter.

Avatar in no way deserved BP, not for one bleeding picosecond IMHO. We were saved from Cameron taking the last steps to utter unsufferability by his ex.

That's true. His acceptance speech for Titanic was so bad, no one wants to see an encore.

I'd also count Inglourious Basterds. It's certainly alternate history.

Some sci-fi films that I would have liked to see nominated:
Back to the Future. One of the most tightly written films ever. At least, I believe it did receive Best Original Screenplay that year.
Batman (1989)
Batman Returns. A beautiful gothic fairy tale. Come to think of it, Tim Burton has never been nominated for Best Picture. That's a crime if ever there was one. Also, Michelle Pfeiffer deserved Best Actress.
Children of Men. A masterpiece of filmmaking as a visual medium and a unique experiment in narrative. Things happen but they happen without the usual cinematic fanfare. Just as in life, major characters die violently, unexpectedly, and for no reason.
The Dark Knight
Ghostbusters. A legendary film overlooked by the Academy as both a sci-fi film and a comedy. Bill Murray deserved Best Actor for this, no question.
The Terminator. One of the most perfect movies ever made. Cameron's masterpiece. Better than Aliens, Avatar, T2, or Titanic.
V for Vendetta. A soaring testament to the ability of the human spirit to transcend tyranny. Plus, I'm surprised Hollywood didn't piss themselves with joy over the movie's anti-conservative messages.

While I'm not sure it's Best Picture material, I think Joss Whedon deserved a Best Adapted Screenplay nod for Serenity. Exhibit A:
"This landing could get pretty interesting."
"Define 'interesting.'"
"'Oh god, oh god, we're all gonna die'?"

While it's fantasy, not sci-fi, I think it's a travesty that Raiders of the Lost Ark didn't win Best Picture. It has certainly withstood the test of time in ways that Chariots of Fire has not.

 

[Harvey]

It covers the same thematic ground as a sci-fi picture (the conquest of space) and it was featured in Starlog twice, so yeah, it belongs there. Just like Capricorn One also belongs there.

Capricorn One begins with a fictional manned mission to Mars about to launch. That's the science fiction context. The Right Stuff is about the actual X-1 flight and the Mercury Program and that historical period of space exploration. I think that's a big enough difference to draw distinction between the two.

Movies like Apollo 13 and The Right Stuff are definitely related to the science fiction genre, but they're not quite the same. At least, I don't think so. But, arguing semantics, really.

 

[Canadave]

It covers the same thematic ground as a sci-fi picture (the conquest of space) and it was featured in Starlog twice, so yeah, it belongs there. Just like Capricorn One also belongs there.

Capricorn One begins with a fictional manned mission to Mars about to launch. That's the science fiction context. The Right Stuff is about the actual X-1 flight and the Mercury Program and that historical period of space exploration. I think that's a big enough difference to draw distinction between the two.

Movies like Apollo 13 and The Right Stuff are definitely related to the science fiction genre, but they're not quite the same. At least, I don't think so. But, arguing semantics, really.

I agree. Don't get me wrong, I love The Right Stuff, but it's not science fiction. It's based on events that really happened, not something that may happen or that could have happened. And that right there takes it out of the realm of science fiction and more into historical fiction.

 

[Cmndr J Crichton]

Movies like Avatar always will get snubbed by the Oscars. Usually they're industry changing movies like Star Wars, and even Tron get batted aside from the usual art house drama. I was surprised that No Country For Old Men won. It's not their style to nominate a movie like that for best picture.

Tron was snubbed for best effects nod because the Oscar delegates felt that they cheated by using computers, and not practical means to do effects. Kind of hypocritical now huh? Steven Lisberger, and his crew should at least get an achievement award for that movie, for starting what we all take for granted now. True Star Wars used Computer effects for the Rebel Briefing scenes, but not to the extent Tron did. Imagine Cameron doing Avatar using 1980's tech.

 

[timelord1010]

A Sci-Fi movie won, Titanic. It won and even thou it was based on a real event you have to admit half the movie was fiction or fantasy.

 

[cardinal biggles]

^Fictionalized history is not the same thing as fantasy. If Cameron had Titanic go down the rabbit hole or collide with some mad scientist's secret floating iceberg-shaped laboratory, we might have something to talk about.

People seem to be getting things a bit confused here. Hermiod was correct that only four sci-fi films have ever been nominated: Star Wars, E.T., Avatar, and District 9. If you expand the list to include fantasy, horror, and anything that could remotely be considered "genre," you can throw The Exorcist, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and all three Lord of the Rings onto the pile.

2001 was never nominated (and it's a shame it wasn't; 2001 was something incredible and new, whereas Oliver! was Yet Another Goddamned Musical). A Clockwork Orange was never nominated.

 

[Harvey]

^^
We might have a more interesting movie, too.

Thanks for the corrections on the Kubrick movies, though it's a damned shame those films were never nominated for Best Picture.

 

[Harvey]

A Clockwork Orange was never nominated.

That sounded right to me, too, but reading the book George Lucas' Blockbusting this evening (a tremendous resource) it turns out it was nominated for Best Picture.

So...

Avatar (2009)
District 9 (2009)
E.T. (1982)
Star Wars (1977)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Those seem to be the only five Best Picture nominees that are science fiction films. All five lost.

 

[cardinal biggles]

I stand corrected. Not sure how I missed that.

 

[The Borgified Corpse]

People seem to be getting things a bit confused here. Hermiod was correct that only four sci-fi films have ever been nominated: Star Wars, E.T., Avatar, and District 9. If you expand the list to include fantasy, horror, and anything that could remotely be considered "genre," you can throw The Exorcist, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and all three Lord of the Rings onto the pile.

What about the radically alternate history of Inglourious Basterds?

 

[cardinal biggles]

What about it? Alternate history != science fiction.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

People seem to be getting things a bit confused here. Hermiod was correct that only four sci-fi films have ever been nominated: Star Wars, E.T., Avatar, and District 9. If you expand the list to include fantasy, horror, and anything that could remotely be considered "genre," you can throw The Exorcist, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and all three Lord of the Rings onto the pile.

Then you're up to at least nine nominated films. The distinction between sci-fi and fantasy is artificial and not at all meaningful; for example, there's no way in which Star Wars is more extrapolative, plausible or respectful of science than Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

That episode of CSI about the guy murdered at a science fiction convention had a classic exchange between two lab workers: the "mundane" informs the "trekkie" that Mr Ed was science fiction and shows like Star Trek are fantasy - Ed, after all, clearly takes place in a parallel universe where horses evolved the power of speech, whereas Trek takes place in a fantasy realm where matter can travel faster than the speed of light.

 

[cardinal biggles]

People seem to be getting things a bit confused here. Hermiod was correct that only four sci-fi films have ever been nominated: Star Wars, E.T., Avatar, and District 9. If you expand the list to include fantasy, horror, and anything that could remotely be considered "genre," you can throw The Exorcist, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and all three Lord of the Rings onto the pile.

Then you're up to at least nine nominated films.

Ten. Harvey was good enough to point out that A Clockwork Orange got a Best Picture nomination.

The distinction between sci-fi and fantasy is artificial and not at all meaningful; for example, there's no way in which Star Wars is more extrapolative, plausible or respectful of science than Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

I can't argue with that. Hell, we have arguments here all the time about whether something should be posted in here or General Media.

 

[RobertScorpio]

People seem to be getting things a bit confused here. Hermiod was correct that only four sci-fi films have ever been nominated: Star Wars, E.T., Avatar, and District 9. If you expand the list to include fantasy, horror, and anything that could remotely be considered "genre," you can throw The Exorcist, Raiders of the Lost Ark, and all three Lord of the Rings onto the pile.

Then you're up to at least nine nominated films.

Ten. Harvey was good enough to point out that A Clockwork Orange got a Best Picture nomination.

The distinction between sci-fi and fantasy is artificial and not at all meaningful; for example, there's no way in which Star Wars is more extrapolative, plausible or respectful of science than Raiders Of The Lost Ark.

I can't argue with that. Hell, we have arguments here all the time about whether something should be posted in here or General Media.

(oh, mister kotter...mister kotter)

 

[Admiral Shran]

Science fiction is described as - "a genre of fiction which uses, within the context of the story, imaginary elements that are largely possible within scientificially established or scientifically postulated laws of nature (though some elements in a story might still be pure imaginative speculation).

Fantasy is described as - "a genre of fiction that uses magic and other supernatural forms as a primary element of plot, theme, and/or setting. Fantasy is generally distinguished from science fiction by the expectation that it steers clear of scientific themes.

So, nominated science fiction films (which all deal with scientific themes) are....
1.) A Clockwork Orange
2.) Star Wars
3.) E.T.
4.) Avatar
5.) District 9

Nominated fantasy films (none of which deal with scientific themes, but do have supernatural/magic ones) are....
1.) Raiders of the Lost Ark
2.) The Fellowship of the Ring
3.) The Two Towers
4.) The Return of the King

 

[Hermiod]

Are we arguing that because the whole SF/Fantasy combined genre has had ten nominations that it has been well represented at the Oscars ? Eighty two years and ten nominations is a disgrace.

 

[Rii]

Are we arguing that because the whole SF/Fantasy combined genre has had ten nominations that it has been well represented at the Oscars ? Eighty two years and ten nominations is a disgrace.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but who cares?

 

[Hermiod]

Are we arguing that because the whole SF/Fantasy combined genre has had ten nominations that it has been well represented at the Oscars ? Eighty two years and ten nominations is a disgrace.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but who cares?

Who cares about anything ? Why do you even have an account here ?

 

[Rii]

Are we arguing that because the whole SF/Fantasy combined genre has had ten nominations that it has been well represented at the Oscars ? Eighty two years and ten nominations is a disgrace.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but who cares?

Who cares about anything ? Why do you even have an account here ?

I just don't understand the emotional investment is all. It's not like any of us here are filmmakers whose future prospects can be affected by such things. So the Academy snubs genre films, so what? Fuck 'em. We can still appreciate them, and in any case there's always the Hugo/Nebula awards.

 

[Hermiod]

I just don't understand the emotional investment is all. It's not like any of us here are filmmakers whose future prospects can be affected by such things. So the Academy snubs genre films, so what? Fuck 'em. We can still appreciate them, and in any case there's always the Hugo/Nebula awards.

Sure, the films not being recognised doesn't make me enjoy them less but it's sad that the people behind an extremely popular genre (in fact, the most popular genre in terms of box office receipts) still don't receive the same accolades for their work as somebody who made yet another period drama or romantic comedy.