Digital Movies, Analog Oscars

Kappelmeister writes "The idea of giving Andy Serkis a nomination for The Two Towers is gone, but not forgotten. This New York Times article (FRRBBB) examines the many fine lines that the Academy must draw in the coming years: how physical must the set design, the cinematography, the acting and -- as in the case of Donald Kaufman -- the writer be before a film is shunted into a specialty category like "Best Animated Film?" I think that they will continue to fork with the times; there used to be separate Oscars given out for "one reel" vs. "two reel" shorts, color vs. B/W cinematography, and even director vs. assistant director."

Comments

Who cares?

[gnu-sucks]

Who cares - best picture is best picture. A lot of work goes into designing real and digital sets. Cinamatography (sp?) you say? Analog and digital, I say.

Is a movie any more real if you watch it over a vcr or a dvd?

Who cares...

[jonr]

Everybody who is really interest in movies ignores that Oscar thing. It is just so "they" can pat them self on the bak. I hope they don't pull a muscle doing it.
The escrements coming from Hollywood each year gets worse every time.
I should put some better arguments, but I just don't find it worth my time. :

Fine Line

[trotski]

I agree wholly with this point. The trouble is, with 3d rendering technology creating more and more realisitc images, it will be difficult to tell the difference between animation and live action.

Maybe it's time for the academy to get with the times and give awards based on context. Even if the movie is theoretically animated, if it looks like live action or is based on live actors, it should still count as live actions. We're getting to the point where theres two different types of digital cinematography: The stuff thats supposed to look animated and the stuff thats supposed to look digital. I mean, most stuff on TV like news or some TV shows are shot in front of green screens with the background added in later. The lines are too blured to try and maintain two different categories.

hidden roles

[bobba22]

If a character is overly made up, denying the audience the ability to see facial expressions - elephant man - star wars - LOTR, etc, will big name actors shun the roles? IMO, I think not, where a role could be given to a lesser actor, I think that a 'hidden' role would be much more difficult to act in and create a bond with the audience (which really did happen in this case). I think the academy should think of a new category covering these roles. I know the awards are the most hideous form of backslapping but if the point is raised, then this is what they must surely do.

Re:More to this than meets the eye

[sparrow_hawk]

Actually, they seem to want to treat *all* animation that way, period. _Spirited Away_ really deserves a Best Picture nod, IMHO. Then again, i'm biased. _The Hours_? Jeez.

I agree with the poster upthread who said, okay, let's give one for best character portrayal, so if it's a live-action the actor stands up, and if it's CG w/ actor the actor and the animators stand up, and if it's cel or CG animation w/o mocap, the animation team stands up. Might be hard to fit all of Pixar on stage, tho... Then one for best cinematography, which basically means who told their story most artfully, and so on. The Oscars, self-congratulatory though it may be, does need to change with the times.

Roger Rabbit

[aleonard]

Just a question on the "Best Animated Film" category that they put good animated movies in in order to make the Best Picture category otherwise competitive - Which category would you put Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

I think that the Academy will adapt to the times, and will probably figure out the best awards. And, if not, there's always all the other awards shows, should the Oscars become irrelevant. "Direction," in the common sense is mostly useless, I would think, in a digital production, yet it still has direction of a kind. Camera angles, movement... but not dealing with live actors, or with a certain lighting, or an odd camera angle that is nearly impossible to pull off... none of these are problems with digitial productions. That doesn't dilute their contribution; it's simply different.

A splintering of categories might be premature, might not. The fact that there were only two contenders in "best animated picture" probably says it was too early. But within a few years, it could be a fully stocked category. If not, they should probably reincorporate it back into the normal categories. It's all about trying to figure out the best distribution of categories and recognizing the diverse talents.

One problem

[Mossfoot]

Much like laws and regulations, it is much easier to make them than to take them away. I can just imagine eventually every movie getting award for some category...

best hand double for a black and white action/comedy

Re:Non-digital actors get a lot of help, too.

[fruey]

The fact that film, as a medium, is not real-time like theatre, opera and other "live" performance arts, means that the judgement is really based on all sorts of things since the days when it became economically feasible to shoot a scene multiple times. Directors are probably getting a little bit too perfectionist because of the latest technologies and taking scenes way too many times, but the actors still have to produce the raw acting.

Now, as far back as the 30s (maybe further) there have been special effects and multiple takes used in film. Mattes and other painted backgrounds were used effectively in films as far back as the Wizard of Oz. Animation mixed with real acting happened in Mary Poppins, probably before that.

As long as real actors are being used, and their acting is not replaced by completely computer generated stuff, then it qualifies as "live action" in my book. Even if you edit out bad acting, there still has to be some good acting left.

Directors already get separate awards for how well they direct. Editors get awards for how well they edit. It's a bit like the old Karaoke machine claim "Makes a good singer sound great; makes a bad singer sound good!". You might agree with the first statement as far as a good singer is concerned, you will probably disagree with the second if you've ever had to sit through some hopeless singer's rendition of "My Way" late at night in a Karaoke bar. I think the same rules apply to cinema. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.