B&TB should've won the award for Best Picture ?

[SleepingBeautyAurora]

What do you think ? Should it have won the award for Best Picture ?

[Simba3]

Thought it is an amazing film, I voted No. I think "Silence of the Lambs" was the rightful winner of the Best Picture award that year. But, I'm happy that Beauty and the Beast was the first and only animated film to be nominated for Best Picture.

[SpringHeelJack]

Ditto. "Silence of the Lambs" is an excellent film with amazing performances all around, and a perfect thriller in nearly every way imaginable. I love "Beauty and the Beast", but it just can't compare.

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

Voted yes.
"Silence" is excellent but I think that B&B moves you, it touches your soul, while "Silence" is just a thriller that would be nothing without the acting abilites of Hopkins and Foster. So they should be given the Best Actor/Actress awards, -I don't remeber if they were- but as a whole B&B had much more to say, more heart in it.
A thriller is always just a thriller, even if it's bad or good.

[Escapay]

So they should be given the Best Actor/Actress awards, -I don't remeber if they were

Silence of the Lambs is one of three films to win the Big Five (Best Picture, Best Director, Best Screenplay, Best Actor, and Best Actress. The other two were It Happened One Night and One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest.

Albert

[NarniaDis]

sadly I am in the mixed group -2 great movies and I would be happy with either one but it would have been so great for BATB to win...

[SleepingBeautyAurora]

I feel like it should have won, in honor of Howard Ashman.

[slave2moonlight]

Silence of the Lambs was excellent, but I don't feel that it was in any way better than Beauty and the Beast, and I do feel Beauty and the Beast has a broader range of entertainment value.

But a truly ridiculous loss was Monsters Inc.'s loss to Shrek.

[BelleGirl]

Just a question to you all: would any of you have believed for a moment that an animated feature could have won over a life-action movie, no matter how well-made?
Corect me if I'm wrong , but insn't it true in general that the life-action genre is still regarded as somewhat superior to animation?

And may this not be one of the reasons why the Academy decided to institute a separate Oscar category for Animated features: to prevent that animation would ever again compete with life-action?

Just wondering...

[2099net]

Even in live action, how often does a comedy film or performance win? It's amazing when most actors readily acknowledge that comedy is harder to perform than drama, that comedy is almost always overlooked by the self-important Academy.

There is a definitive bias against "non-issue-worthy" performances when it comes to the Oscars® which has resulted in some mind-blowingly bad results.

I decided after "A Beautiful Mind" won best adapted screenplay that the Academy Awards were basically creatively bankrupt - in that they would go for the "issue" even if the issue was presented in a whitewashed, sanitised version suitable for 10 year olds over truely creative and groundbreaking work. Apparently to win a best Adapted Screenplay award, all you have to do when adapting the original work is cross out everything negative.

So yes, I can see why some people may feel that there is a bias against animation, but I don't think that's automatically true. It's hard for an animated film to win best picture, because you are not talking about the screenplay, or the music, or the acting... or even the directing. All of these have seperate awards. What you are (supposedly) rewarding is how everything fits together - the totallity of the production. And Animation doesn't have equal standing. How would you judge make-up? Special effects? Lighting? Costume designs? Set design? How would you judge acting? Has a voice only performance ever even been nominated for an Oscar®?

In my mind its fair Beauty and the Beast didn't win. You can't compare apples to oranges.

[slave2moonlight]

It's hard for an animated film to win best picture, because you are not talking about the screenplay, or the music, or the acting... or even the directing. All of these have seperate awards. What you are (supposedly) rewarding is how everything fits together - the totallity of the production. And Animation doesn't have equal standing. How would you judge make-up? Special effects? Lighting? Costume designs? Set design? How would you judge acting?

All those things have their equivalents in animation. However, as you said, the film should be judged on the final product, "how everything fits together," and not with the question of "was there an adequate representation of make-up, special effects, etc...". The question is, was it the best film, not whether or not it had all the aspects covered by other awards.

[2099net]

I understand animation has design elements - animated characters "perform" on painted sets and wear animated clothing etc.

But I don't quite think that they are the same as physical builds, or physical lighting models or physical practical effects. When some thing is physical, it has real-world limitations which have to be considered. Animation allows - in theory - anything the artist can imagine to be come a "reality".

So I don't think its fair to compare practical set design to that of a animated background for example. But I will admit, as CGI is used more and more to augment physical builds in a manner transparent to the audience, perhaps in the future I will see the animated and physical diciplines on an equal footing.

I just don't think it's fair to compare live action to animation. I actually don't think its fair to compare dramatic acting or scripts to comedic ones either. How can something like There Will Be Blood be compared to something like Knocked Up fairly?

Also, while I am no fan of Silence of the Lambs - at all, I don't actually think Beauty and the Beast deserved to win best picture anyway. It's too "simple". I know that will offend some people here, but it is. It is not a complex film, especially if you take out all of the (Oscar winning by the way) music. The Lion King was more complex (for example).

Beauty and the Beast is very entertaining, but its not a revolution. Incidently, there's lots and lots of live-action Best Picture winners I would also class in the same boat as Beauty and the Beast.

[slave2moonlight]

I understand animation has design elements - animated characters "perform" on painted sets and wear animated clothing etc.

But I don't quite think that they are the same as physical builds, or physical lighting models or physical practical effects. When some thing is physical, it has real-world limitations which have to be considered. Animation allows - in theory - anything the artist can imagine to be come a "reality".

It takes a huge amount of work and effort to make those imaginings a reality in animation, just as with live-action (which now often uses CGI all over the place). If a Lord of the Rings flick, with all its CGI, can win Best Picture, then these technical issues aren't legitimate excuses.

So I don't think its fair to compare practical set design to that of a animated background for example. But I will admit, as CGI is used more and more to augment physical builds in a manner transparent to the audience, perhaps in the future I will see the animated and physical diciplines on an equal footing.

They should be seen on an equal footing anyway, as they still must be created from nothing, even if it is not in a real world environment. Live-action films have always used tricks to get around the real-world environments, like painted backgrounds (not unlike animation) and models.

I just don't think it's fair to compare live action to animation. I actually don't think its fair to compare dramatic acting or scripts to comedic ones either. How can something like There Will Be Blood be compared to something like Knocked Up fairly?

It's totally fair. It's all in the quality of the final product. It doesn't matter how much money was spent on it, how much effects they have, how many actors were in the film. It's only the quality of the final result that should matter.

Also, while I am no fan of Silence of the Lambs - at all, I don't actually think Beauty and the Beast deserved to win best picture anyway. It's too "simple". I know that will offend some people here, but it is. It is not a complex film, especially if you take out all of the (Oscar winning by the way) music. The Lion King was more complex (for example).

Simplicity can be a beautiful thing. To me, Best Picture is not defined as "most complex picture", but I guess everyone sees it differently.

[2099net]

It takes a huge amount of work and effort to make those imaginings a reality in animation, just as with live-action (which now often uses CGI all over the place). If a Lord of the Rings flick, with all its CGI, can win Best Picture, then these technical issues aren't legitimate excuses.

Most people "know" Lord of the Rings was being "rewarded" for pushing the scope of motion pictures. Although, I think the old style epics of the past did more pushing. But Lord of the Rings did have several innovations in its making.

Does that make it (or any of its films) best Picture. Not at all. Which brings me back to my first point - the Oscars® have little to no creative integrity (in my eyes) any more anyway.

They should be seen on an equal footing anyway, as they still must be created from nothing, even if it is not in a real world environment. Live-action films have always used tricks to get around the real-world environments, like painted backgrounds (not unlike animation) and models.

But you forget what the Academy actually is. Why it was set-up and what it is supposedly rewarding. Its a group of industry professionals who gather together to reward their peers. Do you think the average guy on the street cares about best set design or best make-up (in a non-horror film application)? It's where professionals in one artistic field can look at advancments or quality of work in their field and reward them. It's no different to industry awards for architecture or public service.

Sadly, I doubt there is a sizable number of members of the academy who work in animation, so it will always be overlooked. (And yes, I do still think all aspects of animation require different diciplines. That's not to belittle any of their work, but it is different).

It's totally fair. It's all in the quality of the final product. It doesn't matter how much money was spent on it, how much effects they have, how many actors were in the film. It's only the quality of the final result that should matter.

The members of the various branches nominate those in their respective fields while all members may submit nominees for Best Picture

But with best picture, they are (in theory) voting for a totality of the professions that the Academy represents, and as I said, I doubt Animation has much of a percentage when it comes to members, so if the majority of set designers prefer the fact that the Titanic was reproduced exactly down to little details like the knives and fork handles, then that will (sadly) sway more people who are members of the set design profession to vote for a film like Titanic than an animated movie. Why would a set designer vote for a movie which didn't exactly feature his skills over a movie where the set designer was probably blown away by the work of one of his peers?

All of the above is in theory though, because I don't doubt most best picture nominations are done based on industry-wide praise or public reaction.

Simplicity can be a beautiful thing. To me, Best Picture is not defined as "most complex picture", but I guess everyone sees it differently.

I believe a Best Picture winner should have some form of innovation behind it - even if slight. In reality this is not the case 9/10. But really, I do sometimes wonder exactly what makes a Best Picture.

I honestly don't think Beauty and the Beast has any such "innovation".

[Aladdin from Agrabah]

It's too "simple". I know that will offend some people here, but it is. It is not a complex film, especially if you take out all of the (Oscar winning by the way) music. The Lion King was more complex (for example).

We have a Beast which tries to make a girl love him. How simple does that sound? The relationship developed between the two in the film not only is not a simple issue, it's actually one of the most important issues of all times: should we judge others by their appearance? Does a "Beast" deserve true love? And, what is beauty anyway? This film has so many symbolisms and messages and heart, I just can't see why someone would ever think it's "simple"!
The Lion King was and still is overrated, as I can see. What's so complex about a cub running away from home after his dad's death and going back some years later? A traumatised kid, a lazy teenager, a responsible adult. So what? Aren't many people you know like that? What's so special about it? Even "Bambi", IMO, provided a better version of the Lion King's issues, there were much better and purer qualities in it.
You want a Disney classic that is really, really complex? Watch "The Hunchback of Notre Dame". That's what I really call complex!

[slave2moonlight]

But you forget what the Academy actually is. Why it was set-up and what it is supposedly rewarding. Its a group of industry professionals who gather together to reward their peers. Do you think the average guy on the street cares about best set design or best make-up (in a non-horror film application)? It's where professionals in one artistic field can look at advancments or quality of work in their field and reward them. It's no different to industry awards for architecture or public service.

But that's what the individual awards are for, not the Best Picture award. Just as the Animated Feature award was created so animated films could be ignored by the Best Picture category.

But with best picture, they are (in theory) voting for a totality of the professions that the Academy represents, and as I said, I doubt Animation has much of a percentage when it comes to members, so if the majority of set designers prefer the fact that the Titanic was reproduced exactly down to little details like the knives and fork handles, then that will (sadly) sway more people who are members of the set design profession to vote for a film like Titanic than an animated movie. Why would a set designer vote for a movie which didn't exactly feature his skills over a movie where the set designer was probably blown away by the work of one of his peers?

Oh, there's no doubt that people vote for what they best relate to, but that bias doesn't have anything to do with which films actually should or shouldn't win.

I believe a Best Picture winner should have some form of innovation behind it - even if slight. In reality this is not the case 9/10. But really, I do sometimes wonder exactly what makes a Best Picture.

I honestly don't think Beauty and the Beast has any such "innovation".

For me, "Best Picture" is just that, the best picture. The film, be it a simple one, a complicated one, an innovative one, or whatever else, which I found the most satisfying in its storytelling with every aspect the filmmakers chose to use. That's the inevitable unfairness of awards like the Oscars though. They're just a matter of opinion. For me, Beauty and the Beast was the Best Picture of the year and the best Disney animated feature so far.

[2099net]

You say The Lion King sounds generic, but come on, so does Beauty and the Beast. It is not complex, and its not that deep. It always takes the easy way out of any issues it may bring up. Why did the fairy punish the staff? It's never explained. Where are the Prince's parents? Again, never explained. Gaston being so obnoxious is also just to avoid any issues. Imagine how much better it would be if Belle was torn between her love for Gaston and her growing love for The Beast? Instead their is no conflict with Belle, and Gaston is an obstacle that is easily removed by a self-imposed death we can all cheer over.

It is a well known fairytale with added music and comedy sidekicks. It is primarily a children's story - you can't escape from that fact.

There is nothing wrong with that. It's what it was made to be.

But if it was the Booker Prize (or Purlitzer or whatever the American equivielent is) would you expect a prose adaptation of Disney's Beauty and the Beast to win the best novel award?

[BelleGirl]

Conclusion: 'story complexity' is a criteria for awarding "Best Picture"!
So why was the 'simple' Beauty and the Beast nominated for best picture in the first place? What do you think?

[Flanger-Hanger]

Critics claimed it was because 1991 wasn't a good year for movies. I guess none of the critics saw The Rocketeer. There's a movie that should have got a nomination or two.

Anyway BatB is a good movie, but I don't think it's Best Picture worthy. The filmmakers should be happy with what they got. Now Snow White getting only one nomination in 1937 and losing it is another story.

[2099net]

Conclusion: 'story complexity' is a criteria for awarding "Best Picture"!
So why was the 'simple' Beauty and the Beast nominated for best picture in the first place? What do you think?

I don't know. All my critisisms of it taking the easy way out can be applied to the screenplay for A Beautiful Mind... and that won best adapted screenplay. [update: depressingly that film won best picture too] So frankly, after that I've never seen the Oscars as anything but self-promotion really. I don't think at least half the decisions made for the awards are based in artistic merit anymore. I think popularity or a sense of duty influence people just as much.

I know some people think I am hatin' on Beauty and the Beast, but I am not.

Did anyone expect Transformers last year to be voted for best picture? Arguably it does many things right and arguably the only let down is the script. But the script appealed to all the pre and early teenagers I know, so it could be argued Transformers did what it was written and made to do. Does it come close to best picture status?

How acceptable does a movie had to be to adults before it can be considered for best picture. Obviously most people here think Beauty and the Beast has enough in it to be acceptable to adults, but I disagree.

Would anyone here suggest that any movie aimed are pre-schoolers could ever be considered for a best picture award? If Disney made a Mickey's Clubhouse movie, would it ever be in the running? I would say not - never - because it would never have the emotional strength and depths required. I also think that Beauty and the Beast doesn't have the emotional depths required. It may make people cry - but that's more down to the film's score than its writing.

Belle is not three dimensional, the characters are mainly populated in shorthand and stereotypes. Belle has very few emotional conflicts to settle or decisions to make. The Beast does a bit of brooding, but that's it. You never see the horror of him being transformed into a beast, just as you never really see the concequences of Belle's decision to trade places with her father. Gaston is just an unlikable and arrogant bully. The enchanted staff are just comic relief (complete with British and French stereotypes). Everyone has a function to the story, and they perform that function.

I know it sounds like I'm being overtly harsh on the film, and honestly I'm not. I'd much rather Beauty and the Beast win the award than some of the films that have - such as Titanic (talk about stereotypes and characters having functions!).

Beauty and the Beast was not written, designed or made to be a Best Picture nominee. It was not written to have a big moral or ethical message. It was not written to challenge the audience's expectations. It was not written to highlight a social issue. It was not written to allow an actor to lose himself or herself in a role.

It was written to entertain, and entertain it does. Superbly. Especially children of all ages, including those of us more open to our inner childs then others.

But when compared to JFK, Prince of Tides, The Silence of the Lambs and Bugsy (Bugsy? really? 1991 must have been a bad year for movies) I don't see how anyone could have expected it to win.