Comments on: Cameron Bitter Because Oscars Snubbed Animated Characters

By: SonicForge

SonicForge — Mon, 08 Mar 2010 06:22:39 +0000

Avatar is really the future in how we will look at movies. You look at a Broadway musical like Cats or the Lion king. Are you going to call them on the carpet because they use makeup and costumes to enhance their performance. All avatar in contrast is really just digital makeup. The performance is every bit the actor and gone really is the need to hours of makeup and set changes and the performance can focus on the actor. This isn’t really blue screen like we are used to seeing. I see huge potential for this but convincing Hollywood otherwise remains to be seen. If hurt locker was done in motion capture which in all respect it would be possible. When you then say that it was animated and not real acting? People are just not used to seeing actors used in this light. As the technology advances this is going to become more and more an issue.

By: Steve Burstein

Steve Burstein — Sat, 13 Feb 2010 20:52:56 +0000

Wouldn’t what Landau wants fudge the catagories?

By: googly woogly

googly woogly — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 06:14:46 +0000

If the animators REALLY didn’t touch up the performance then INDEED it is NOT animation but (digital) makeup effect.
Man! Zoe was so awesome that it was easily one of her scenes that sold the ENTIRE film to me, yes entire gazillion dollar thing with just one scene!!

By: David Breneman

David Breneman — Sat, 06 Feb 2010 05:47:33 +0000

“Johnno” writes: He’s not asking for nominations in teh field of animation, he’s saying that the performances of the CG characters you see in Avatar are exactly the performances of real actors, and despite that there is a CG visage overtop, they ought tob e considered for nomanations in live action film acting.

But if that’s the case, why not nominate foley artists?

By: MoBu

MoBu — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:06:42 +0000

Amid, personally I feel Zoe deserved a nod. As the argument has been made already, the Oscars should only recognize the performance of an actor in a best acting category, and Zoe’s was commendable. The reason characters in an otherwise traditionally-recognized animated film don’t get recognized is because it isn’t the actor’s performance coming through, it’s a collaboration of the animator moving from and enhancing that original performance. The animator played an integral part in Avatar, but who’s ultimate goal was to absolutely translate the exact performance given by the actor. This is what Jim and John are trying to get across with the Academy. It’s the same battle when they tried to illustrate with Andy Serkis’ performance, and it’s the same battle that’s going to be fought for several more of these movies to come. And since we’re all visual people here, this is what I’m referring to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOHPCI_9-eQ

By: NoTimeForThat

NoTimeForThat — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 11:48:35 +0000

“Well the acting in Avatar was terrible nonetheless and the film didn’t even deserve best picture nomination. What a highly overrated standard popcorn flick”

If that much.

It was pretty much a garbage film, with little to no redeeming factors. The only reason it made so much money was due to it’s ridiculous hype and paid-for controversy, commisioned to CNN and their “news story” about the film’s “psychological effects”

It’s about as equally deserving of a “best picture” nomination as that dreadful Transformers 2 movie was. And when you’re film is equal of that with a movie filled with racist morphing moped bikes, giant wrecking ball testicles and bot brownie jokes, your film has problems. No matter how much money it made.

Twilight and New Moon are also spoken highly of by lobotomized 14-year old girls who also turned it into a financial success, but those are still widely regarded as Z-grade cinematic trash.

Although a razzie. That, I would say it is in line for. If it wasn’t already going to be awarded to Dragonball Evolution, Chun-Li or Twilight.

But Oscar? Avatar deserves an Oscar about as much as Tiger Woods deserves his wife.

By: Brianimator

Brianimator — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 10:05:08 +0000

They AREN’T animated characters. That’s Cameron’s whole point. Please get a clue.

By: John Eyley

John Eyley — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 00:03:52 +0000

If anyone has been dudded for recognition of their acting/performance capture it was Andy Serkis (LOTR).

We’re talking about gray areas now, aren’t we? Where the lines are blurred between the use of animators’ skills and actors’ performances. BUT we (um, the Academy) have to find a way to recognize an actor’s and/or animator’s brilliance when the final screen character is a comination of the two?

OTOH – A useful definition of animation is ‘frame-by-frame’ intervention in constructing a film. IMHO, Gollum is one of the highest forms of animation in modern times – a combo of brilliant acting on Andy’s part and supreme micro-animation on the Weta team’s part.