Can 'Wall-E' really be nominated for best picture at the Oscars? No!
Stop the "Wall-E" Oscar madness, please! Box-office and critical reax to that adorable robot are so socko that everybody's gushing over the idea that the film will get — forget the Oscar for best animated feature, which seems inevitable — a nomination for the highest prize.
Even the lofty Hollywood Reporter: "The bigger question is whether it might become a candidate for a best picture slot." Ditto the trade publication's Risky Business blog. New York mag's Vultures are circling too, and Slash Film stalks the idea.
Can we have two Oscar reality checks, please? "Wall-E" is not only a cartoon, it's sci-fi.
Only one animated film — "Beauty and the Beast" in 1991 — has been nominated for Oscar's biggest prize, and that wholesome Disney toon lost to the gory thriller "The Silence of the Lambs" (which was only the third film to sweep the top five races). Like other animated pix, "Beauty and the Beast" did pick up Oscars for song and score, however. (Indeed, it was the first film to ever have three songs competing.)
Fifty-four years earlier, Walt Disney produced the first full-length animated film, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs." Even that pioneering classic couldn't break into the best pic race! That was especially tragic considering there were 10 nominees in those days. The only nod it got was for best music score. It lost, as did 13 other nominees to "One Hundred Men and a Girl." The following year the academy paid off poor, Oscar-snubbed "Snow White" with one of those honorary jobbies. Disney was presented with a special Oscar (and seven little ones) by reigning movie moppet Shirley Temple.
While "Beauty and the Beast" heralded a renaissance in Disney animated fare, none of the follow-up musical toons –- such as "Aladdin" (1992) and "The Lion King" (1994) –- could break into the bigger Oscar races, though they scored music awards and the like.
In 1995, high-grossing "Toy Story" became the first animated feature to earn a screenplay nom (it lost to "The Usual Suspects"), but it also failed to reap a best picture bid. Though animated features often ruled the box office charts and earned critical kudos, academy members were loath to reward with best picture nominations the films that did without the visible presence of their largest branch, the actors. In 2001, the academy introduced the animated feature category to answer criticism of the seemingly second-class treatment of such first-rate fare.
Last year at this time, "Ratatouille" was the Pixar picture that was generating Oscar heat. Even though it received the best reviews of all movies in 2007 and reaped more than $200 million in U.S. theaters, that sneaky lil' rat could not break into the final five best picture nominees. While it picked up a pair of technical nods, as well as noms for score and screenplay, "Ratatouille" at the end of Oscar night had to be satisfied with winning the consolation prize of best animated feature.
Such a fate is likely to await "Wall-E." Not only does it have to overcome the bias against including animated features in the best picture race, it also has to contend with the academy's long-standing aversion to honoring sci-fi films with the top Oscar. No such film has ever won and only one fantasy flick, the final chapter in "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy, has taken home the best picture award.
(Images: Warner Bros./Disney)
I hope WALL-E ends up on the Best Picture Nod. If it doesn't, I will not watch the oscars.
WALL-E costed 180,000,000 to make, just as much as the Dark Knight. So many people worked so hard on it. Ben Burtt did amazing voice design, Stanton wrote his most daring script, the computer graphics were realistic (with the exception of the human characters), Newman did a beautiful themed score (WHY DID HE NOT GET A NOD FOR BEST MUSIC AT THE ANNIES?!), etc.,etc.
I also find WALL-E to be better than Beauty and the Beast. That was a great movie, but WALL-E told the better story.
WALL-E is not one of the bloated romance films like the great, but overrated Titanic. Titanic did nothing but circled around Jack and Rose romance. There were many things going on beside WALL-E's and EVE's romance- There was a lethargic society, a polluted Earth, and machines discovering life. And WALL-E romance with EVE affected humanity.
WALL-E is certainly better than Kung Fu Panda. Kung Fu Panda only took 130 million to make. Kung Fu Panda is certainly funnier, but comedy is not enough to define a good movie. Kung Fu Panda had a excellent storyline, but it is what it is, it was only meant to make children laugh and enjoy it. Kung Fu Panda is not of the universal. Young children will love the cuteness of WALL-E, and teens and adults will love the allegorical story.
Dreamworks may be funnier, but Pixar suceeds in mixed comedy with out-of-this world storylines. Storylines matter more than comedy.
Because you think comedy defines how good a movie is, you are one of those inconsiderate people who give no damn toward the hard effort.
What use is an Annie Award to WALL-E? WALL-E is no animated movie, it's a romance made by animation. Saying that WALL-E is an animated movie is discriminating.
If WALL-E doesn't show up on the Best Picture category, I will never watch the Oscars again. Mark my words.
Posted by: Caroline | December 11, 2008 at 07:05 AM
This article is terrible. WALL-E *can* be nominated for Best Pic, and in a time when the late-year Oscar contenders are so, blah, it's even more likely than ever. Remember, Beauty and the Beast *did* get nominated. And with WALL-E being the critical darling, not ONLY a financial success, of this year, it's hard to believe it won't see a nomination, especially with the Oscar push. My article would read: Stop the pessimism, WALL-E *will* be nominated for Best Picture.
Posted by: Matt | November 17, 2008 at 04:24 AM
The movie WALL-E exceeds my expectaion.
I believe WALL-E deserves nomination for Best Picture.
It's too bad animated films are discriminated from live-action films.
Well, I HOPE THIS DISCRIMINATION STOPS!
Posted by: caroline | July 25, 2008 at 02:22 PM
WALL-E deserves it. It has great visuals, not to mention perfect sound design by Ben Burtt, and not to mention a beautiful music score.
But most of all, the screenplay was most beautiful, it wasn't just about a robot looking for love, it was about the driod was struggled between emotions and duty, the emotionless robot who followed orders whether its right of wrong, the environmental devastation, and human dependency. It was detailed.
But why is it that animated films have to be discriminated? What sets it apart? I mean, WALL-E had some live-actions scenes.
Not only is WALL-E loved by critcs but by audience of all ages.
I wouldn't count on it, but WALL-E deserves the Best Picture.
Posted by: caroline | July 17, 2008 at 05:55 PM
Ratatouille was a great movie, but doesn't compare to Wall-E. In my opinion not many movies of any kind compare to how moving this film is.
Posted by: Zach | July 02, 2008 at 09:04 PM
Why can animated films choose whether or not they compete in best animated films or best picture? If its animated then it should be in the animated category (otherwise why have the two categories?).
Posted by: andrew | July 01, 2008 at 11:01 PM
It is my understanding that Pixar executives chose to have "Ratatouille" compete in the Best Animated Feature category instead of Best Picture. It's not that it couldn't break in, but rather the creators felt it had a better chance of being recognized in the animated category. Which is a shame. When films are universally acclaimed for their technical mastery, masterful scripts and pitch-perfect performances (albeit voice-over instead of live action) why are they still not seen on the same level as a live action film? In my eyes, Wall-E defines what motion pictures should be, and likewise is THE best film of 2008 so far. It is unfortunate that the general public and the Academy probably won't see past its "animated" facade into its true quality.
Posted by: Travis S | July 01, 2008 at 08:05 AM
The animated feature category was not created "to answer criticism of the seemingly second-class treatment of such first-rate fare," but to ensure that no other upstart like "Beauty and the Beast" might ever take an Oscar away from a film featuring real actors. The category is a ghetto, in other words, and not the honor you make it out to be.
Posted by: RudyV | June 30, 2008 at 05:21 PM