Slashdot Mirror
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."
In times of war, distract the public with bread and Serkises....
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
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?
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.
"Entropy is the bad-guy, and he is everywhere"
His performance as Gollum ranks in my mind as one of the best character studies in the last ten years, to feel so much pity for the poor creature, yet to then see the evil that lurks in his heart, vastly improved the ability of the film to convey the spirit of the book. In fact, I would almost go as far as to say that Andy Serksis' interpretation of Gollum effected me more that reading Tolkiens description. This would probably be the only case of that, the films usually can only try to compete with my imagination, but for whatever reason, this is one case where the opposite occured...
December 2003 can't come soon enough!!!
Cloud City Digital: DVD Production at its cheapest/finest
Back in the old days, there wasn't nearly as much editing done in the movies, so actors really had to "act". Now-a-days, good movie editors can make the worst child actors in the world look like geniuses. Just nip and tuck out all the legitimate bad acting, and you got yourself a "Best Actor" nomination.
The point is, in 2003, even the non-digital actors are getting a lot of help.
Very popular slashdot journal for adul
had to thrash around in a freakin' cold stream for ages.
How about an award for Best Character in a movie?
The push to have Andy Serkis nominated for Best Actor was pure and simple a media stunt. The simple fact is getting Gollum onto the screen was a HUGE team effort. You may claim, getting any actor onto screen is a huge team effort and each part of the team is recognized in their own category, but the animators at Weta Digital had just as much to do with Gollum's performance as Andy Serkis did. The media hype (and that's what it is hype, hype intended to create publicity and we all know there's not such thing as bad publicitiy) about Gollum's entire performance being that of Andy Serkis is hogwash. There is a huge ratio of animators to Andy Serkis' at Weta Digital who all contributed directly to Gollum's performance. In fact Peter Jackson personally apologized to the animation team for the hype surrounding Gollum, Andy Serkis and the Oscar nomination. It's an embarassment perpetuated by New Line Cinema and it insults the Gollum animation team at Weta Digital. If Gollum was nominated for Best Actor then it should be a team nomination like Best Visual Effects is and include Andy Serkis and at least the Animation Director, Randy Cook but to try and give it to Andy Serkis alone is unconscionable and I for one am glad the Academy didn't fall for this cheap stunt.
I bet artists who labor over traditional animation probably take offense at the notion of competing with CG and the same probably goes for live-action. Rightfully so. These are three different activities, all perfectly valid in their own way, and they should not be competing against each other. Hollywood apparently wants to treat CG work as the unloved stepchild, constantly pushing it away. No surprise.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
I wonder when we will see a 3D animated Academy Awards show, where Gollum himself could walk up to the podium and thank his animators, the actor who made his moves be so realistic and the computer which raytraced him so well :)
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.
Hey! That sounds like a great idea!
Speaking of, have you ever seen that show, Filter, on G4? The one where the viewers vote on top 10 lists?
Yeah, they're always exactly spot on right.
What you're saying, here, is that you think Titanic should have won every award on Oscar night, including Best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary Short Subject.
People are stupid. People won't go out and see all the movies on the list.
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.
"In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, 'Make us your slaves, but feed us.'" -Dostoevsky
Here is the link provided by google news to the NY times article:
In a Digitally Animated World, Oscar Stands Rigid
later,
"Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
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
Fuzzy Knights: New RPG Strips Tuesday and Friday!:
http://www.fuzzyknights.com
Not really. Gollum is not an entirely virtual/artificial actor, it is only a virtual/artificial puppet, played by a real, human actor (which is remarkable, because often three actors 'play' the body, the face and the voice respectively). The visuals are nothing but costume design and make-up. There already are Oskar categories for that, and there also are categories for the actors.
Maybe there is a yet non-existant category that would be justified by new animation techniques, but its certainly not 'best Character', since in this field there's no substancial difference to traditionally shot pictures, in which you could also give per-character awards. For example, you might find that Renée Zellweger's acting wasn't the best overall last year and that she doesn't deserve an award as best actress. You might furthermore find that Colleen Atwoods costume design wasn't the best of all and Jordan Samuel's makeup wasn't the best of all, but that the combination of that all was just perfect and therefore the character of Roxie Hart deserves an Oskar as 'best character'.
That was your suggestion, right? It just hasn't anything to do with digital production, nothing at all.
but what do i know, i'm just a model.
The first annual Visual Effects Awards, which was specifically created to honor Visual Effects, had a category for Best Performance by an Actor in an Effects Film. Winners are listed here. Serkis won, along with Elijah Wood and Sean Astin. Even if the academy will not recognize digital performances, other Hollywood organizations will.
I think you will eventually have to ask whether motion capture should be in a category with animation either; comparing the two techniques is rather like comparing photography to painting. And I certainly don't think we should be looking to the Oscars for leadership; the award has lost what little credibility it ever had as an artistic recognition, and is now just a pat on the back for the latest American box office blockbuster (Gladiator and Shrek, anyone?). If your really wanted to know what the best animated films were, you would go look at the Annie winners; I'm sure as digital performances get more common, we'll see some proper awards be given out for them too.
"Reality is just a convenient measure of complexity" -Alvy Ray Smith