Individual Entry

 
 

 
Oscar the Grouch strikes again

Source: BBC News

And the results are in! I’ve seen so few of the nominees that there’s not much point in my commenting in too much depth, but, at a cursory glance, Ennio Morricone picked up a long-overdue Oscar in the form of an “Honorary Award”, Martin Scorsese has finally been granted the Oscar for which he has been snubbed so many times in the past (too bad it had to be for a remake of a Hong Kong film, created for idiots who can’t read subtitles), Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest can actually claim to have won the same number of Academy Awards as Babel, and a film that isn’t actually animated won Best Animated Feature (what a crock!).

 
Posted: Monday, February 26, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Comments: 9
Categories: Animation | Cinema

 
Comments

1.

"a film that isn't actually animated won Best Animated Feature"
Huh?!
HAPPY FEET isnt really animated??

Posted by: ARCVILE, February 26, 2007 9:19 PM

2.

It’s motion captured.

Posted by: Whiggles, February 26, 2007 9:23 PM

3.

Moriccone got a well-deserved honorary oscar, very emotional acceptance

Posted by: aw, February 26, 2007 10:56 PM

4.

"It's motion captured."
Like most animated flick today anyway.
Would you have prefered CARS to win?
For me CARS looked fantastic but what a bore!

Posted by: ARCVILE, February 27, 2007 1:27 PM

5.

“Like most animated flick today anyway.”

Say what? None of the nominees last year were motion captured, or the year before that. And, to the best of my knowledge, motion captured “animated” flicks (an oxymoron if ever there was one) are still in the minority, with the bulk of animation still actually the work of animators, not guys dancing around in Lycra suits.

And yeah, I would have preferred Cars to win. I haven’t seen anything of the other two apart from trailers, but based on those neither looked particularly impressive.

Posted by: Whiggles, February 27, 2007 1:53 PM

6.

"Say what? None of the nominees last year were motion captured, or the year before that."
Most animated films these days are anyway. Its a useful tool to capture movements... even in 2d animation.

"And yeah, I would have preferred Cars to win. I haven't seen anything of the other two apart from trailers, but based on those neither looked particularly impressive."
Well see them and then you could actually have a opinion about it. If there's one thing you should know is not to judge a film by its trailer, which most of the time is misleading.

As for CARS, I love Pixar and all but it was just a predictable boring piece of visual eye candy. This was far behind the likes of TOY STORY or THE INCREDIBLES.

Posted by: ARCVILE, March 1, 2007 2:54 PM

7.

It’s useful, perhaps, but only as a time-saving endeavour, or in an attempt to “blend” computer-generated material with live action footage, such as in a film like King Kong. The Fleischer brothers worked out in the 1930s that rotoscoping was a futile attempt to capture life. Why is it that these filmmakers, with what is essentially the digital equivalent of the same thing, have not taken these lessons to heart? Instead, we have George Miller making uninformed and frankly idiotic claims that “even the greatest animators in the world would take a lifetime to pull off the nuances of dancing that a gifted dancer is able to pull off”.

In any event, I continue to find it hard to believe your claim that most CG (and traditional) films are motion captured these days. The Ant Bully, Hoodwinked, Ice Age: The Meltdown, The Wild, Over the Hedge, Open Season and Flushed Away seem, as far as I can gather, to have been the main CG animated features released in the last year, and none of them employed motion capture to any great degree, if at all. Indeed, Happy Feet, Monster House and Arthur and the Invisibles (the latter of which was, ironically, barred from the Best Animated Feature category due to the amount of live action included in it) seem to have been the only major films of the period to make extensive use of the technique.

I suppose I’ll eventually have to see both Happy Feet and Monster House. The only problem is, as both look to be eye-searingly unattractive, it’s not something I have a particular desire to do any time soon.

As for your opinion of Cars, it’s not one I can really understand. Sure, it’s not as good as Toy Story or The Incredibles, but it would take an exceptional film to even come close to matching them. Cars, for me, was ultimately a well-made and entertaining film was a solid story. It wasn’t exactly exceptional, but it certainly didn’t put a blot on Pixar’s report card by any means. I’m just glad it won the Annie for Best Animated Feature, even if the essentially live action crowd responsible for the Academy Award results wasn’t interested in recognising it.

Posted by: Whiggles, March 1, 2007 3:13 PM

8.

Good points!

As far as Miller's comments goes... pretty pathetic in his part. Can't believe this is the guy who gave us THE ROAD WARRIOR!

Off the "animated" films you mentioned, MONSTER HOUSE is the only one I haven't seen yet but I plan to someday. OVER THE HEDGE was my favorite. As for CARS, I wanted to like it but the story simply felt too uninteresting, predictable and a lesson of life for kids to be somekind of entertaining to me.

Posted by: ARCVILE, March 1, 2007 7:53 PM

9.

Cars was certainly more kid-oriented than most Pixar films, although I suppose that’s fair enough, as The Incredibles swung in the opposite direction. I suppose I should see some more of the CG films that have come out in the last year, although to be honest I’m beginning to get more than a bit fed up with all the wisecracking animal comedies. Let’s have something new!

Posted by: Whiggles, March 1, 2007 7:55 PM

Comments on this entry and all entries up to and including June 30th 2009 have been closed. The discussion continues on the new Land of Whimsy blog:

https://www.landofwhimsy.com

 

 
 
Back to...