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."
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 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 :)
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
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.
Conversion Rate Optimisation French / English consultant