Technically, science fiction has won one already -- Around The World in 80 Days took Best Picture for 1956, in much the same way Return of the King did: It was a big picture, based on a well-known book by an author whose popularity transcended the genre, made a lot of money, and had a star-studded cast.
The only thing that I quibble with is the need for the genre to prove itself: if we're still talking about Sci-Fi needing to prove itself, then it couldn't have been necessary back in the 50s.

Not only is being huge a vote of confidence, it greatly increases your nomination base -- all those people who worked on the movie get ballots. :-)

Mystic River as runner-up? Not by the overall nominations counts. And the big winner who wasn't nominated was Billy Boyd, who had supporting roles in two of the Best Picture nominees.

Science fiction needs a science-fictiony way to win the award. Like if someone made an awesome film version of Brin's Startide Rising that garnered a best actor nomination for a dolphin. Now THAT is science fiction baby!

Well this one is pretty easy. Someone needs to make the film version of Old Man's War...

Seriously, If Crash can win the Best Picture then winning shouldn't be a problem for a sci fi movie. The real problem is making a sci fi movie that is popular enough to have best picture potential.

I really think the best chance for sci fi is to adapt one of the classic Sci Fi novels into a film. I would love to see Pohl's Gateway adapted for the big screen. If done right it has the potential to be a great film.

Rabid

Or they could make a really cool sci-fi comedy with lots of Hollywood in-jokes and references, an unorthodox first contact plot, and a heart-tugging Holocaust theme adding seriousness. Maybe get Aaron Eckhart to play the lead. Now where would we find such a story, I wonder...

Though comedies never get the credit they deserve, so that probably wouldn't win.

John Murphy:

"Technically, science fiction has won one already"

Yeah, no. 80 Days was certainly based on a science fiction novel, but wasn't science fiction itself. What was science fiction when Jule Verne wrote the source material -- long-distance hot air travel -- wasn't really so in the 1950s (unlike, say, Frankenstein, because they could no better reanimate long-dead tissue in 1931 than they could in 1819, when the novel was written).

Equally important in these things, and more practically, "80 Days" wasn't marketed or understood to be science fiction when it came out, unlike Star Wars or ET were when they were nominated, or Return of the King was marketed as obvious fantasy. So suggesting that science fiction as a genre had already settled the Best Picture question is really stretching.

That said, I would be more than willing to entertain the argument that "80 Days" is the first steampunk Best Picture winner.

Tully:

Overall nomination counts don't always mean the best chance at Best Picture; a lot of technical category nominations are neither here nor there for that.

Well this one is pretty easy. Someone needs to make the film version of Old Man's War...

Seriously, If Crash can win the Best Picture then winning shouldn't be a problem for a sci fi movie. The real problem is making a sci fi movie that is popular enough to have best picture potential.

I really think the best chance for sci fi is to adapt one of the classic Sci Fi novels into a film. I would love to see Pohl's Gateway adapted for the big screen. If done right it has the potential to be a great film.

Rabid

I think for an SF film to ever get Best Picture, it's going to have to come in under the radar and actually do almost the exact opposite of your suggestions, except for 3 and 5. It's going to have to be character driven and allow the Academy to say, "Well, it's not really science fiction, it just has this futuristic backdrop." (We know differently, but as far as Hollywood is concerned SF is all about the FX.) I think the first SF film to win will be a smaller picture that is primarily about people, possibly with an anti-technology message (say Moon or Gattaca. It will probably also have some sort of cause-related baggage attached to it, allowing the Academy members to feel good about themselves for voting for it (say District 9). Finally, whatever it is, while everybody else is going on and on about how innovative the ideas are and clever and original it all is, SF fans will be shrugging and pointing out that somebody covered all of it decades earlier and probably better.

#6 Brain Pals - 'nuff said

I find it interesting that you don't mention characters or plot. I assume you are just taking that as a given?

I'm not sure if I can put this in appropriate words so please bare with me. I think the main plot(theme) or characters need to be able to transcend the fact that they are in a scifi/fantasy movie.

A story like IRobot (i use this example because it happened to be on TV last night) is in my opinion mostly about the tech and the conspiracy and only secondarily about the Laws or Robotics and this one special robot with feelings. Unlike a movie such as Bicentennial Man where the story of this one robot's evolution and quest to grow and evolve is the only thing to focus on.

Somehow, even with dragons and big glowing eyes and elves and dwarfs LOTR is essentially the story of a Warrior torn away from the one he loves to help save the word from danger. This hits at the core of peoples beings and is more powerful than the CGI.

I was always under the impression that the Oscar for RotK was more an acknowledgement of the entire series, that no one was going to give the first two the Oscar until the final film came out just in case the other ones stunk up the joint.

I was always under the impression that the Oscar for RotK was more an acknowledgement of the entire series, that no one was going to give the first two the Oscar until the final film came out just in case the other ones stunk up the joint.

John-

While Verne wrote about "long-distance hot air travel," he did so in Cinq semaines en ballon, but not in Le tour du monde en quatre-vingts jours. In the latter book (which is science fictional, but not science fiction), the only mention of hot air balloons is in chapter 32, where Verne wrote: "Still, some means must be found to cross the Atlantic on a boat, unless by balloon—which would have been highly risky, besides not being capable of being put in practice."

I guess I should correct myself. #3 Doing it all right actually covers Characters and Plot. I just felt the need to add to that a bit.

The Academy has the same sort of snobs as do some of the major publishing agents and publishers when it come to the genre of science fiction. Should a movie not contain enough actors, producers, directors, etc. with their same political views, the movie isn't recognized by the Academy even if the public has made the movie a box office hit. Too many critics and not enough doers. Great article!

Let's see: Oscars are inherently political, we have a movie industry whose self-styled movers and shakers tend to be mortally afraid of science, and we're trying to figure out the logic? Guess I'm too cynical, but I think that science fiction (or animation) will only win when to not pick that movie will mean that the Academy will lose what's left of its credibility. That was kind of where they were with Return of the King.

In a similar cynical vein, I'd argue that Gladiator was revisionist enough to qualify as fantasy, but I suspect that I will get shouted down on that. I can't bring myself to make a similar case for Shakespeare in Love.

@Heteromeles W.r.t. Gladiator I think 'historical fiction' is probably accurate as a genre descriptor, fantasy is not as the movie is missing (as far as I recall) any fantasy elements. The story is made up of historical elements, in a historical setting with some level of homage at least to the actual history, although without letting history interfere with the story...

As for sci-fi winning the awards... I hear Al Gore won for some science fiction the other year. Or was that semi-fictional science. I think the politics may very well have something to do with it. On which note a sf movie movie probably has to be archetypal (a la LOTR) or politicized in the appropriate fashion to win. I think the former is much more likely to happen, as an sf movie that is direct commentary on current politics in such a way as to please the appropriate movie people is ridiculous. The scientologist hero bravely fighting off the evil government vaccination agents to save the misunderstood filmmaker - filmed as a documentary - instant razzie and oscar. Can't beat that.

Oh, and I'd rather see a movie of 'The Android's Dream' than OMW. I think Sci-fi needs more humor, and although OMW is potentially epic, TAD is extremely interesting and fascinating.

It would also help if you know how to work a room -- and not just the biggest available space at ComicCon. I seem to be the only person on Earth who found the LoTR trilogy as engaging as a barium enema, but you've to admire the way Peter Jackson is not only a very creative man, but is also a very media-savvy figure and an astute businessman who managed to convince a Hollywood studio to take a massive risk on an ambitious, hugely expensive trilogy whose success was by no means a foregone conclusion.

Here's something else to learn from Return of the King: I seem to be the only person on Earth who found the LOTR trilogy as engaging as a barium enema, but I do admire how hard Jackson worked to convince a Hollywood studio to take a massive risk on a trilogy whose success was far from a forgone conclusion. That didn't happen just because he's a nice guy.

Peter Jackson is also an astute businessman, knows how to work a room like a pro, and is extremely media savvy. It wasn't only the fanboys and genre media he courted.

Is there some way in which barium enemas fail to keep your attention?

I admit, I've never had one, but the process seems very likely to keep your mind on it, and only it, for its duration, regardless of how long.

So, no Craig, you're not the only one!

OK, I can't figure it out - in the picture heading this week's column, from what movie is the shot of the lady? I'm guessing it will be totally obvious once someone names it, but I can't for the life of me figure it out. Best-picture-worthy science fiction? It looks like one of those "one of these don't fit with the others" quizzes.

Greyface;

Heh... I just couldn't imagine paying for the one that lasts an extra 45 minutes, after you've sat through the nine hours of special features where every aspect of the process is explained in soul-curdling detail. :)

Doug G:

It's from A Clockwork Orange, which was indeed nominated for Best Picture (and only one of two "X" rated films to be so, back when "X" didn't automatically mean "porn").

*Tully: Overall nomination counts don't always mean the best chance at Best Picture; a lot of technical category nominations are neither here nor there for that.*

True, John, but since the Academy does not release the voting stats, only the winner, we're left with tasseography. :-)

I'm a little surprised you didn't mention the prestige factor in connection with this, considering the disproportionate number of "best picture" Oscar winners either based on a notable literary novel or play, or else based on a real story. (Obviously the "based on a real story" point doesn't help us here, but I'll refer to it briefly later on.)

By "notable literary novel or play", I mean both the sort of established classic one hears about in high school and college literature classes, or else the sort of well-reviewed best-seller (or play) one used to read about in places like The New York Times Book Review--these days one usually hears about such things on NPR or Oprah.

That said, the prestige factor (in addition to the other factors you cite) probably helped RotK as a credible "best picture" candidate. Though the "Lord of the Rings" books are cornerstones of modern fantasy and have considerable geek appeal to this day, they also have a certain measure of mainstream literary credibility that inoculates them against genre cooties.

The problem with applying this model to science fiction is that there are no sf works--either in or out of the genre--of comparable ambition and scope that enjoy the same level of acclaim as "Lord of the Rings". (I don't mean to suggest there isn't anything as good, simply that if it exists most people outside of fandom haven't heard of it.)

There is one example of a recent acclaimed literary novel, definable as sf, whose filmed version has attracted discussion as a candidate for this year's Oscars--Cormac McCarthy's The Road. It may or may not help that McCarthy's No Country for Old Men was the basis of a "best picture" Oscar winner a couple of years ago. It certainly helps that several noteworthy actors (including Oscar winners Robert Duvall and Charlize Theron) are in the cast.

I should point out that in recent years Academy voters have begun turning away from the model of prestige I've described. Since RotK's win, the only "best picture" Oscar winner adapted from a notable "literary novel" was the McCarthy adaptation above. (The last "best picture" Oscar winner based on a true story was A Beautiful Mind, two years before RotK.)

It may be that the Academy has begun favoriing cinematic style as a guide to excellence, whether or not the story enjoys validation in more traditional media. What this might mean for science fiction at the Oscars is anyone's guess.

There's another factor in Return of the King's victory that wasn't really mentioned: the previous two movies. I think the voters weren't voting on ROTK alone, they were voting on the complete set--one whole movie, released in three parts over three years.

I suspect that's why The Two Towers didn't win an Oscar, despite being, in my opinion, the best individual movie of the three--the story wasn't finished yet, so it didn't get the votes. Once it was finished, all that goodwill it had built up over the previous two years poured out and got it the prize.

It would be extremely difficult to replicate that set of circumstances with any other movie, SF or not.