Tellurider wrote:...ratatouille
But why does this category even exist? Animated as opposed to what? Photographed? Animation is merely a technique.
Yeahduff wrote:But why does this category even exist? Animated as opposed to what? Photographed? Animation is merely a technique.
Stopped reading here. Can't imagine the nonsense that follows.
I’ll put it in writing: the best motion picture released last year was WALL-E.
Komiyan wrote:Frankly I'm just amazed that a superhero movie got in there.
Rkolter wrote: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.
Rkolter wrote:In a nutshell, you can do everything over in an animated film
Mr.Bob wrote:Oh thank christ. I thought this thread was making an argument for Australia...
McDuffies wrote:For one, in live action movie you'll never give consideration to how realistic the movements are.
McDuffies wrote:Whether animated films should be considered for major awards, I personally think yes, but I'm torn about it.
I always get pissed off when non-english speaking films are being nominated for major awards. If Oscars are being anknowledged as an award for films in english language, then it has some chance for relevance. But when it nominateds non-english films, it's moving out of it's turf where it simply stands no chance, for one because it never considers african or ever asian, mid-eastern cinematography - hell it doesn't even consider entire European cinematography (and isn't too keen on following American independent film either). Films that are nominated are strictly those that are distributed in USA or slated to be distributed, and that's very small, practically insignificant part of most Hollywoody-like movies. Oscars don't stand a chance in being a relevant award for fovies in all languages, so it shouldn't try in the first place.
Similarly, if Oscars are anknowledged as an award primarily for live-action movies then it's understandable why animated movies are not included. If they claim pretense on being award for all kind of movies, then animation should be considered, but also documentary and children movies because, duh, those can be good movies too. I think, though, that it's implied that Oscars are mainly an award for adult, live-action, fictional movies in english language.
IVstudios wrote:Rkolter wrote:In a nutshell, you can do everything over in an animated film
You can do everything over in a live action film. It's called a "take."
Komiyan wrote:Rkolter wrote: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.
But making animation look good is equally hard, as is writing a good enough story to exploit the lack of boundaries. Both animated and live action movies face very different challenges and neither is 'easier' than the other, so both should be considered.
Rkolter wrote:IVstudios wrote:Rkolter wrote:In a nutshell, you can do everything over in an animated film
You can do everything over in a live action film. It's called a "take."
Not when that take involves blowing up the set.
Rkolter wrote: 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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest