CH: A Horror Movie Wins Best Picture

Since I think this is the highest Academy Award a film can win, I now have a challenge for our film fans here.

Make a horror movie win Best Picture. Considering the view of horror films typically, this should be quite difficult, but this is a challenge for a reason.;)
 
Apart from The Silence of the Lambs (which I believe is described as a "thriller" just so that film snobs don't have to call it "horror"), The Exorcist (which has fantastic elements and is therefore a "true" horror film) is probably the best bet. (I had it win in my own timeline, That Wacky Redhead - though not without making some changes to it).
 
Aww man, I didn't check the awards close enough.:(

Okay, well, keeping with the challenge, make it a movie that can't be called a Thriller as it's too obviously a horror movie. Although of course, the Exorcist can do that.:(

Dammit, I was hoping for a completely new movie!:mad::(:p
 
Since I think this is the highest Academy Award a film can win, I now have a challenge for our film fans here.

Make a horror movie win Best Picture. Considering the view of horror films typically, this should be quite difficult, but this is a challenge for a reason.;)

Easy. Have The Exorcist win in 1973.
 
Psycho is the only horror film before Silent of the Lamb that might have won, and Anthony Perkins deserved a Best Actor for his role.

The academy did give Fredrick March a best actor for Jekyll and Hyde in 1932.
 
Interesting on both counts, but what I was looking for was a horror movie that didn't exist in OTL gaining the award, for whatever reason.
 
It'd have to be a smart horror film, like The Silence of the Lambs is. (And yes, Silence is definitely a horror film -- it's got shocking moments and gore and everything.) A Hostel-style movie is never going to win in a million years.

Maybe it's worth looking into adaptations of the works of Stephen King? Or maybe if that movie The Devil's Advocate was a bit different?
 
Of course it has to be smart, that's the point. I'd be curious what that would look like.

But yes, another option is to get an existing movie to be a lot better.
 
I'm only being a little facetious but I dearly love the idea of the Wicker Man (the original and not the appalling remake) beating the Sting to the best film for 1973. I' not sure what butterflies or ASB would be needed to make that happen though:)
 
It would be interesting to see a big budget feature length version of Dracula that didn't suck. ;)

To expand, something that takes the budget, star power, romantic appeal and other good elements of Bram Stoker's Dracula, the gothic atmosphere and faithfulness of the 1977 BBC version and throws in some epic scenes, beautiful natural scenery, innovative cinematography and popular special effects. And Christopher Lee in his prime in the title role as a tragic, multifaceted villain, Laurence Oliver as Van Helsing and appropriate A- listers as Harker, Seward, Holmwood and Morris.

A film like that winning an Oscar would make an interesting background feature to a modern timeline.
 
Horror Movies that could have won Best Picture, but didn't.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932)

Psycho (1960)

The Exoricist (1973)

Carrie (1976)

Halloween (1978)

Alien (1979) (Also counts as science fiction)

The Thing (1980) (Also counts as science fiction)

The Shining (1982)

Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Dracula (1992)

Frankenstein (1994)

Seven (1995)

The Devil's Advocate (1997)

The Ninth Gate (1999)

Summer of Sam (1999) Would have split the vote

American Psycho (2000)

Hannibal (2001)

Donnie Darko (2001) Would have split the vote

Panic Room (2002)
 
Last edited:
Horror Movies that could have won Best Picture, but didn't.

Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1932)

Psycho (1960)

The Exoricist (1973)

Halloween (1978)

Alien (1979) (Also counts as science fiction)

The Thing (1980) (Also counts as science fiction)

The Shining (1982)

Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)

Dracula (1992)

Frankenstein (1994)

Seven (1995)

The Devil's Advocate (1997)

The Ninth Gate (1999)

Summer of Sam (1999) Would have split the vote

American Psycho (2000)

Hannibal (2001)

Donnie Darko (2001) Would have split the vote

Panic Room (2002)

Of these Psycho is the one that deserve the most. Hitchcock was nominated for best Director and I think Psycho deserved a best film and best Actor nimination.

Fredrick March did win a best actor for Jekyll and Hyde.

I thought Seven deserve a best picture nomination. But if any David Fincher film deserve a best picture award it would be Fight Club.

1976 Carrie base on the Stephen King Novel. Sissy Spacek was nominated for Best Actress, Lost to Faye Dunaway for Network. (A film that has not withstood the test of Time) Piper Laurie was nominated for Best Supporting Actress for Carrie, Lost to Beatrice Straight for Network. She was on screen in Network for 5 minutes and 40 seconds,
 
It would be interesting to see a big budget feature length version of Dracula that didn't suck.

I think you miss the entire point of AH big screen discussions if you think Lugosi's efforts 'sucks' but some filmed-on-video TV production is more cinematic .


This sure isn't a list of nominees, just movies you think should have been nominated; which means you don't believe the 1930s Frankensteins could have won best picture Oscar?

I thought Seven deserve a best picture nomination. But if any David Fincher film deserve a best picture award it would be Fight Club.

Fincher actually came to hate Se7en.

My guess is he holds Zodiac to be his great achievement so far, as opposed to either Fight Club or the movies that did become Oscarbait.
 
I think you miss the entire point of AH big screen discussions if you think Lugosi's efforts 'sucks' but some filmed-on-video TV production is more cinematic .

I'm afraid you slightly misinterpreted my meaning, whereby the reference to 'sucks' was meant as a fairly tame and predictable pun, something reinforced by the ;) that followed it in my original post.

At no stage did I say that the BBC version was more cinematic, but rather that it was true to the text and had a very effective gothic atmosphere that would be jolly nice if replicated in an AH big screen version of Dracula, as the remainder of the description pointed out.

The 1931 picture was extremely good on its own merits, but isn't as faithful to the novel as other versions, which is a quality that would be interesting in an AH film - there could be a lot of byplay around cutting certain elements or adding others in any brief story about an alternate big budget film.

Describing my ideal Dracula flick (and thus a decent contender for an AH Best Picture Oscar) is not belittling the 1931 picture and perhaps it is not deserving of such fulsome deprication.

I think you missed the point of my point by saying I'd missed the entire point.
 
Top