We woz robbed! (Oscars)

[Rkolter]

So... if they face very different challenges and neither is easier than the other... it's like comparing apples and oranges? Thus why they have a catagory for best animated. Maybe they should have similar other catagories though - best actor in an animated film, best actress in an animated film, etcetera.

Nah. At this level, for best picture, it's less about the technical aspects and more about execution, storytelling, how it comes together as art, which is where live action and animation are very similar.

The problem is, they don't have a best Execution, or best Storytelling, or best Coming Together type of award.

[Yeahduff]

...Best Picture?

[Rkolter]

Yeah, ok.

[Prettysenshi]

...Best Picture?

Twas robbed. Y/Y?

[Mr.Bob]

BEEESMMWAURGFH

[McDuffies]

Eh. A movie just needs to get the attention of elite Western audiences, particularly American. Typically these will be serious American fictions, but the occassional Crouching Tiger or Beauty And The Beast really doesn't hurt the integrity of the Awards. Anytime you award the best anything, it's from a specific frame, so while an African film might be excellent to Africans and even the few Americans who've seen it, it's preclusion doesn't destroy the facade by any means.

It's not even wholly American frame, it's specifically Hollywood frame. The whole deal with it is Hollywood institution financed by Hollywood money and populated with Hollywood people, giving awards to Hollywood films, and trying to convince people that it's actually the best of film that they can find. If the award is given outside of Hollywood, that is not to honor the film in question, but to honor the award itself.
Check out trio of European major festivals. By all means they are not perfect (specifically Cannes which has spoiled rotten in recent years) but you'll note much greater diversity. These festivals actually manage to cover majority of world film industries, and give special attention to still-developing, small industries. How can they do it, and Hollywood can't? Well if evaluating, selecting and awarding films is your profession, than you have to make sure to follow every major development in film, or else you're just doing a half-assed job.
It also has something to do with USA being famously insulated, so that any foreign bit of culture that breaks in seems more like accident than anything else. After all, it's not in Hollywood's best interest to let people know that films are being made outside Hollywood too.

[Dr Legostar]

I can't really say I agree with most Oscar choices, not that I've come to care very much anyway.

But on the note of animated movies being up for best picture. It's happened already. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/awards

didn't win, but it was nominated, thus showing us animated features can make it into the best picture category.

[Isukiyomi]

I've noticed that I almost never watch a lot of the movies that get nominated for oscars...

[Mercury Hat]

I can't really say I agree with most Oscar choices, not that I've come to care very much anyway.

But on the note of animated movies being up for best picture. It's happened already. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/awards

didn't win, but it was nominated, thus showing us animated features can make it into the best picture category.

Once and never before or since .

[Joel Fagin]

But there is a very real difference between animation and live action.

Irrelevant. It's a film and can therefore be, in theory, the best film.

As technically appealing as Wall-E was, I can see why they don't often nominate animated films.

In a nutshell, you can do everything over in an animated film, and do anything you want to do in an animated film. Those are some huge limits that live films have to work within.

That would be great if that was their reasoning. Unfortunately, I doubt they have any reasoning at all. I suspect it's a bias. This is the old "comics are for kids" argument - or even "webcomics are all rubbish" argument - in a new arena.

I can't really say I agree with most Oscar choices, not that I've come to care very much anyway.

But on the note of animated movies being up for best picture. It's happened already. http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0101414/awards

didn't win, but it was nominated, thus showing us animated features can make it into the best picture category.

Yeah, and what did they do then? They created the "Best Animated Picture" kiddie table the very next year.

- Joel Fagin

[Mercury Hat]

Yeah, and what did they do then? They created the "Best Animated Picture" kiddie table the very next year.

- Joel Fagin

Beauty and the Beast was nominated in 1991, the category wasn't created for another decade in 2001.

[Joel Fagin]

Yeah, and what did they do then? They created the "Best Animated Picture" kiddie table the very next year.

Beauty and the Beast was nominated in 1991, the category wasn't created for another decade in 2001.

Really? I've had that fact swimming around for years. I wonder where I got it from.

Oh, well...

Ahem.

They created the "Best Animated Picture" kiddie table the very next decade.

- Joel Fagin

[McDuffies]

That would be great if that was their reasoning. Unfortunately, I doubt they have any reasoning at all. I suspect it's a bias. This is the old "comics are for kids" argument - or even "webcomics are all rubbish" argument - in a new arena.

To be fair, majority of animated films are aimed at family audience, which means that special care is taken to make them suitable for kid's viewing, not only by making them G rated, but also by including a lot of elements obviously concieved to attract children. E-WELL is probably a film that pushed the envelope most vigorously, what with bizzare human society and silent passages, but it's characters and cutesy designs are still something that's noticeably attractive for children audience. As far as I'm concerned the only films by major studios in recent years that were made primarily for adults and only secondarily for kids, are The Incredibles and Cars. By that I mean that they deal mostly with themes that are of concern for adults and that fly above kid's heads, risking to be uninteresting for kids. Cars went further into mature themes, but alas it wasn't very good. Every other film I've seen has pushed hard enough to be appealing to kids too, either through familiar themes or through plenty of slapstick, or cutesy characters or wharever it is that kids like.

It doesn't say anything about quality of those movies, though, because even family movies can be superb. Though I personally would like if authors had the kind of freedom to include mature content that authors of animated tv series have. Fat chance, not only because of money involved, but also because it would prolly cause riots when parents start taking their children to see it, without previously hearing anything about the film.

[Joel Fagin]

To be fair, majority of animated films are aimed at family audience, which means that special care is taken to make them suitable for kid's viewing, not only by making them G rated, but also by including a lot of elements obviously concieved to attract children.

True but consider Pixar's movies. Toy Story 2 dealt with the pros and cons of immortality; Wall-E dealt with obesity, computer addiction and surrendering to entropy versus a little TLC; The Incredibles dealt with the culture of mediocrity; and Finding Nemo dealt with parental loss and over protectiveness. That's deep stuff for all-ages movies. Hell, that's deep stuff for mainstream, non-animated movies. That's deep stuff for a lot of literature. It's certainly a lot deeper than Slumdog's "It'll all work out because of, you know, destiny or something"* theme.

(Toy Story 1, Bugs Life, Monster's Inc and Ratatouille were all standard children's movie themes. Cars, I haven't seen. Didn't impress me in the trailers.)

- Joel Fagin

* Again: haven't seen it. The theme is based on impressions and reviews.

[Nanda]

* Again: haven't seen it. The theme is based on impressions and reviews.

I can't possibly comment on which movie was the best of the whole year but I'm pretty sure Wall-E was better than Slumdog.

Why not see it yourself and form an actual opinion of your own? (I mean that sincerely, not in a snarky/sarcastic way.)

[Joel Fagin]

Why not see it yourself and form an actual opinion of your own? (I mean that sincerely, not in a snarky/sarcastic way.)

Good or not, it's not my kind of movie. Anyway, it's human nature to have absolute certainty about topics you have no experience with.

- Joel Fagin

[Dr Legostar]

Why not see it yourself and form an actual opinion of your own? (I mean that sincerely, not in a snarky/sarcastic way.)

Good or not, it's not my kind of movie. Anyway, it's human nature to have absolute certainty about topics you have no experience with.

- Joel Fagin

what Nanda said, but in my case I mean it in an entirely snarky/sarcastic way. People at work have seen it and have good things to say about it.

You do raise a good point though, the movies that win the oscars are exactly a certain type of movie, the type that appeal to the academy, this isn't something lots of people voted on, it's based on the academy, and they're really not interested in our opinions.

[Evil Jamie!]

Oh thank christ. I thought this thread was making an argument for Australia...

What's wrong with that? I mean I haven't seen it but I'm assuming that it's basically Pearl Harbor with Wolverine in it, right?

[Rkolter]

I've noticed that I almost never watch a lot of the movies that get nominated for oscars...

I often have seen some of the nominees, but almost never the winner.

[Nanda]

I'm the sort of person who ends up seeing most of the films that get oscar nominations; We do exist.