The Matrix vs. The Matrix:

The Matrix vs. The Matrix: An Oscar Showdown?
An interesting situation is developing over at WB that I hadn’t really taken into consideration. A great little article at The Gate elaborates:

When it comes to filmmaking - nothing has made the Oscar race stranger than the recent trend of filming a series of movies back-to-back. One example would be The Lord of the Rings series, but an even bigger challenge comes when you look at four films that will all likely be released in 2003. The Matrix: Reloaded, The Matrix: Revolutions, Kill Bill Vol. 1, and Kill Bill Vol. 2. What exactly should the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences do with multiple films that could conceivably be called one film, split in to two parts?

Well, according to the Academy, it doesn’t matter how many films you shoot at once, when they’re released, or how you market them - if the films are split into two parts, and obviously released separately, then they’re separate films that will have to be submitted separately to the Academy.

Of course, if you’re a company trying to make an impact at the Oscars (which have been moved earlier in the year, starting in 2004, to February 29th) - the concept might not be as easy as all that. Warner Bros., the company behind the Matrix films, obviously doesn’t want to have to pit the second and third parts of the film against each other - mainly because that could mean one of the films won’t even get a nomination. That’s because the Matrix films stand the best chance in the technical categories, which often are heavily fought over and don’t always even get the maximum nominations of five films.

You can read the entire Gate article by clicking here.

If a choice has to be made by WB of one or the other, I’d think they’d go with Revolutions. However, I also think the point is moot since Return Of The King will most likely sweep up all the Tech awards in February. Time will tell.