When Return of the King came around, somehow the series had gone beyond the preconceptions that the Academy has about fantasy. And the Academy has a complex about rewarding things that are "due". The fact the Return of the King was the third, and widely viewed as the best, in an acclaimed trilogy, and the fact that the first two films were Best Picture nominees but lost helped seal its win. It was pretty unbeatable.
In other words, people sort of rallied around Return of the King because the Trilogy was due, but it also was more worthy of winning. For example, in 2003 there was a BIG campaign by Harvey Weinstein for the Academy to vote for Martin Scorsese for Best Director because Martin had never won before, not because he deserved it that year. The overzealous campaign backfired, and Scorsese lost again.
So as for ROTK, they didn't just vote to reward the series. If ROTK wasn't good enough to justify the win, it wouldn't have won, though guess is that the "due" factor sort of overrode the Acadamy tradition of snubbing fantasy/sci-fi films.
I am a Peter Jackson fan. I just don't understand what made part III SO much better than I or II. Was there seriously an increase in the drama of the final installment? Could the first two have been improved (or is the EXTRA footage on the DVD an acknowledgement of this).
Dr, Jeckyll won a couple of awards (although the first WINNING film was suppressed for awhile).
Aliens got a nod (Rambo in outer space).
I am a Peter Jackson fan. I just don't understand what made part III SO much better than I or II. Was there seriously an increase in the drama of the final installment? Could the first two have been improved (or is the EXTRA footage on the DVD an acknowledgement of this).
Dr, Jeckyll won a couple of awards (although the first WINNING film was suppressed for awhile).
Aliens got a nod (Rambo in outer space).