The whole Oscars not recognizing fantasy thing?
 

Peter jackson stated that finally the fantasy genre is being awarded/recognized by the Academy - but what's he trying to say?

I honestly don't know....what are the fantasy movies that DID deserve an Oscar?

I can only name Lotr....

So which movies are being overlooked?

Conan the Destroyer had Oscar written all over it. ;)

I personally was quite upset at Beastmaster being snubbed so unfairly.


Actually in all seriousness, Star Wars falls into the Fantasy category, and I feel definitely deserved a win, as did Empire.

I also think PJ was referring to the lack of Fantasy projects from studios, studios, unti now, never saw Fantasy as a very viable genre. Now there will be a Fantasy glut, just give it a year or so.

Well, as Arnold says himself, the Destroyer sucked a**....

but the Barbarian DID have Oscar written over it - alteast regarding music & cinematography.

Star Wars did not deserve a win. It had the unfortunate luck of being up against a better film (Annie Hall).

But really, there haven't been that many good fantasy films, let alone ones that are "Best Picture" caliber.

Opinion of course, everyone has one.

The Wizard of Oz

(I think science-fiction is more ignored than fantasy, BTW)

It was nominated, but it lost to Gone with the Wind. Which is fair, IMHO.

There was actually a lot of tough competition that year in the Best Picture category. The other nominees:

Dark Victory
Goodbye, Mr. Chips
Love Affair
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
Ninotchka
Of Mice and Men
Stagecoach
Wuthering Heights

Mind you, something like It's a Wonderful Life also counts as fantasy (but it was up against Best Years of Our Lives, another worthy winner.)

Well, Dragonslayer was nominated for "Visual Effects" and "Score" in 1982, but lost to Raiders Of The Lost Ark and Chariots Of Fire respectively. That's some pretty tough competition, which is too bad as I think it had a good chance otherwise.


Outside of that . . .
- Time Bandits (no Oscar nominations in 1982)
- The Dark Crystal (no Oscar nominations in 1983)
- The Last Unicorn (no Oscar nominations in 1983)
- Ladyhawke (nominated for "Sound Effects Editing" and "Sound" in 1986 . . . lost to Back to the Future and Out of Africa respectively)
- Labyrinth (no Oscar nominations in 1987)
- Willow (nominated for "Sound Effects Editing" and "Visual Effects" in 1989 . . . lost to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? for both)

Pretty sad, really . . . :(

I think this "curse" lumps sci-fi and fantasy together, in which case you'd have to consider:

2001
Back to the Future
Alien
Independence Day

stuff like that.

I think PJ more or less meant acknowledging that Fantasy can be a serious genre if one has the right material and approach. The problem with Fantasy movies is that because of the public view, no one ever tried to make them with real depth until LOTR; they were little more than eye candy. While I would take exception and say that both Excalibur and Dragonslayer had depth, many others wouldn't.
The sad truth about fantasy is that it is a film genre in which the end results are typically polar; the movie is either a classic or barely watchable, and more of the latter have been made and despite LOTR will most likely continue. :(

Yes, I was aware that it was nominated...it was just the one fantasy picture I thought DESERVED a Best Picture Oscar...I couldn't think of any other fantasy pictures that did...except for perhaps SOMEWHERE IN TIME, but I know I'm out alone on a ledge with that pick...

What needs to be understood is that even after such landmark films as 2001, Star Wars and Blade Runner studios considered sci-fi and fantasy to be 'lower' or 'niche' genres. They appealed to a limited audience except for rare cases, and could not expect to be 'prestigious' in terms of critical acclaim and awards--if that actually was important to anyone.

LOTR is the first time that monetary success, critical acclaim, and awards have converged to this degree for a sci-fi or fantasy movie.

Unfortunately, if the past is any indication, the reasons LOTR hit so big will not repeat. First of all, Tolkien's source material is probably the best there is for cinematic adaptation. Second, PJ and his team of crew and actors were a very happy chemical experiment gone spectacularly right--not an everyday type of production. Third, studios will seek to imitate rather than innovate--thus they will not take the big risks that can translate into bigger rewards. LOTR's influence may not be a good one if successive sci-fi and fantasy filmmakers use it as a bunch of 'conventions' rather than trying new approaches.

I think the main reason the academy doesn't recognize this genre is because of the lack of quality material. But in the science fiction genre I feel there has been some wonderful movies, but truth be told they were not of the variety that would win awards, i.e. Blade Runner or 2001. Truth be told, those two examples were movies that split critics wildly, and many films of the respective genres are either very different, or not really any good (the latter being more common).

I think the main reason these genres will not hit it big is because they aren't really that popular. Look at the more intelligent science fiction films and you will see how in general, they don't succeed commercially. And in general, they are expensive. Same goes for fantasy. I don't think most films in the genres hold the mainstream appeal that a LoTR or Star Wars have.

I just watched Barbarian Queen unrated and i can tell you, the blatant abuse of women combined with nudity and classic swordplay makes it a film which should definitely won an Oscar

Re: The whole Oscars not recognizing fantasy thing?
 

http://www.cutlassvideo.com/yor.jpg

Duh.

And I agree...

A few other films that might have been considered:

E.T.
Close Encounters of a Third Kind
Monty Python and the Holy Grail
It's a Wonderful Life
Brazil
Princess Mononoke
The Princess Bride
King Kong
The Nightmare Before Christmas
Mary Poppins
Toy Story
The Matrix
Metropolis
The Day the Earth Stood Still
Planet of the Apes
Dark City