MovieMusic.com Message Boards: Why Lord of the Rings won what it did

Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks

Why Lord of the Rings won what it did

Archive of old forum. No more postings.

Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

Author	Topic: Why Lord of the Rings won what it did

MWRuger Oscar® Winner	Did some of you wonder why Lord of the Rings won what it did? The answer is simple. SF and Fantasy almost never win anything but technical awards. No SF or Fantasy picture has EVER won Best Picture. No leading actor has EVER won for a performance in a SF or Fantasy picture. No leading actress has EVER won for a performance in a SF or Fantasy picture. No director has EVER won for a directing job in a SF or Fantasy picture. In the category of actress in a supporting role only once ,for Whoopi Goldberg's perfomance in Ghost , has a film won in a SF or Fantasy picture. In supporting Actor Category you have to go back to 1985 for Don Ameche in Cocoon which I believe is really an award for his fine work over the years rather than this particular performance. That is the only one EVER. In Best Original Screenplay only Ghost won in 1990. No Adapated Screenplay has ever won in this genre. In over 560 possible separate awards, there has been only 3 awards have been given to a SF or Fantasy film. The place where these films are recognized is in the technical field: Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Visual Effects, etc. Why you ask? Because most members of the Academy are incapable of recognizing SF and Fantasy as legitimate art forms much in the same way they slight comedy. If it is not a “serious” dramatic work clearly based in the “real” world, then it is B-Movie stuff created for kids and adults with a childish intellect. To most of them it is Bread and Circus for the masses, why should they award it anything other than technical achievements? I wonder if the Academy will ever recognize that these films are just as legitimate as drama and judge a film on it is merits instead of preconceptions fostered by contempt for the genre? Probably not in my lifetime. [Message edited by MWRuger on 03-25-2002]
posted 03-25-2002 10:42 AM PT (US)

TimT Oscar® Winner	Well thats under the unssumtion that, they judge seriously and fairly. And not by popularity. Which I believe its all about. NP- The Time Machine - Klause Badlet [Message edited by TimT on 03-25-2002]
posted 03-25-2002 11:09 AM PT (US)

MarkA Oscar® Winner	Didn't the first Star Wars win best picture?
posted 03-25-2002 11:33 AM PT (US)

Marian Schedenig Oscar® Winner	Needless to say, LOTR is more serious than 99% of the "real world" stuff.
posted 03-25-2002 11:55 AM PT (US)

Marian Schedenig Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by MarkA: Didn't the first Star Wars win best picture? Nope, it was only nominated. However, Ben-Hur won. And while it doesn't qualify as a "fantasy" picture, what's so different to something like LOTR, except that the latter involves magic (and there are miracles in Ben-Hur, too) abd takes place in a fictional place (rather than being a fictional story in a more or less real place).
posted 03-25-2002 12:00 PM PT (US)

MWRuger Oscar® Winner	I don't really consider Ben-Hur to be a SF/Fantasy picture. I would consider it more of a historical epic. I should also add that while I think that Genre pictures have been slighted over the years some really great pictures have been correctly selected. I still assert that it is myopic snobbery that keeps SF/Fantasy pictures from being fairly considered in the bug categories.
posted 03-25-2002 12:27 PM PT (US)

Richard Oscar® Winner	...and until yesterday two African-American actors had not won best actor and best actress, but surely enough it happened. Maybe you should give it another year or two then. Althought LOTR has won a lot of other best picture awards, hasn't it?
posted 03-25-2002 12:41 PM PT (US)

Marian Schedenig Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by MWRuger: I don't really consider Ben-Hur to be a SF/Fantasy picture. I would consider it more of a historical epic. Sure. So do I, so does the Academy. But what they fail to notice is that the difference between "historical fiction" and "fantasy" is minimal. NP: Anton Bruckner: Symphony #5 (RSNO, Georg Tintner)
posted 03-25-2002 12:56 PM PT (US)

MWRuger Oscar® Winner	Richard, True, it has, but frankly, in terms of Hollywood success, do they matter? When people discuss a film's awards they always mention Oscars first. The people who greenlight pictures and pay OSCAR winners all those big dollars really look at the Oscars to take their cues. As long as SF/Fantasy is viewed as a lesser form of film primarily used to create blockbusters to pay for "real" films, it will never have a chance to be appreciated for what it is. Don’t misunderstand me, I am glad it won other awards and even some Academy Awards, but SF/Fantasy needs to win some of the big four, Picture, Director, Actor and Actress. Also, while Denzel's win is important in that he was probably overdue, Sidney Poitier won for Best Actor in Lilies of The Field in 1963 so Denzel is not the first black man to win in that category. Marian, I have a hard time reconciling the thin line you have observed between Fantasy and Historical Epic. Fantasy is story that can never be, a dream of world where magic is real. Historical epic is the world of might have been, a dream of the past in epic form. I think that your analogy works better if we add the word "biblical" to it. Historical Biblical Epic I could see as being quite close because both ask us to take some things on faith.
posted 03-25-2002 01:48 PM PT (US)

Marc Flake Oscar® Winner	I and the rest of the movie-going public ususally vote FOR SF/Fanatasy films--with our wallets. And that is what really counts in Hollywood. The Oscars are all about giving awards for something different.
posted 03-26-2002 02:20 PM PT (US)

Old Infopop Software by UBB