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
How about an award for Best Character in a movie?
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
I agree.
But apart from the fact that it's a team effort, there's a more fundamental reason why he doesn't deserve it.
Gollum is a cartoonish creature. Sure, he's 3D with imperfect textures and non-mechanical dynamics, but the expressions potrayed by him are more fleshed out than what an audience would expect out of a real human. Real actors have to be nuanced and subtle to express those same emotions and are limited by their physical faces. That restriction doesn't exist for CG faces. If anyone gets an award for Gollum, it should only be the VFX team. I venture that there any decent actor could take Serkis' place as long as the VFX talent remains intact.