| # | Author | Message |
11
| skinnerbox
Thu 10/8/2009 5:55p | OK, I just read a description of what Cameron's fancy new virtual camera system does. Ugh.
Seems to be high tech digital puppetry. The video camera captures the actor's performance and digitizes the movement in real time, and the camera's computer applies that movement to the online virtual "puppet" character the director watches on his monitor. So the actor is, in a sense, controlling the movements of the digital character on the director's monitor via the computer, which is working from the digitized video image of the actor's performance. Instead of wearing an elaborate body suit/costume for the camera to film, the computer applies the "costume" onto the actor inside the computer in real time. Clever. Very clever.
Looks like Cameron found yet another way to reduce the need for post-production CG artisans and animators. I hope Avatar hits a box office iceberg and sinks like the real Titanic.
|
12
| mawnck
Fri 10/9/2009 8:49a | >>Seems to be high tech digital puppetry.<<
That's *exactly* what MoCap is, but from your description, the puppetry is not being used to control an entire digital puppet (as in A Christmas Carol), but just the digital "add-ons" to the photographed actor. That's what it looks like to me in the footage I've seen as well. The best part is it saves them the trouble of animating the faces, which is the one area that they just can't seem to get right with MoCap.
I'm not opposed to this process at all. It's neat-o. But it ain't animation.
Obviously there is a lot of animation *in* Avatar (just as there was in Star Wars, G-Force and Alvin and the Chipmunks), but the fact is that those are actors on screen.
As to where to draw the line, I'd say that the Academy just did it:
"An animated feature film is defined as a motion picture with a running time of at least 70 minutes, in which
movement and characters’ performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique. In addition, a
significant number of the major characters must be animated, and animation must figure in no less than
75 percent of the picture’s running time."
That second part got a movie disqualified at the very last second a few years ago. They took a stop watch to "Arthur and the Invisibles" and it didn't pass the 75% threshold. IIRC, that lost us our 5 nominees that year as well.
That 3/5 nominee rule is just STOOPID. Every year we've been riiiiight at the line without crossing it. Why can't they nominate the flicks based on merit? If there are 5 really excellent ones (like this year), nominate them, and if there aren't (like the one year they actually did nominate 5), don't.
But now I sound like post 3. :-) |
13
| alexbook
Fri 10/9/2009 8:57a | >>Where do we finally draw the line with films like these? To call Avatar "live action" does a grave disservice to those traditional films which are mostly live action with a peppering of CG and sfx enhancements.<<
At some point, we're going to have to stop talking about movies as being "live action" or "animation." The lines are becoming too blurred, and I'm not convinced it's a useful distinction to make.
BTW, does "G-Force" qualify as animation? Weren't the rodents animated? |
14
| mawnck
Fri 10/9/2009 9:08a | >>BTW, does "G-Force" qualify as animation? Weren't the rodents animated?<<
We already went through this with the Stuart Little movies, which were declared by the Academy to be Not Animated Feature Films, I guess due to the "significant number" requirement.
I haven't seen G-Force, but it seems to me that if the gerbils or whatever they are are the main characters and are on screen more than 75% of the time, then it would be eligible. |
15
| alexbook
Fri 10/9/2009 9:14a | It seemed like some animal was on screen about 98% of the time, but I wasn't actually timing it. The thing I'm not sure about is if they're always animated, or if they sometimes used actual animal actors. |
16
| Dabob2
Fri 10/9/2009 3:35p | <with a running time of at least 70 minutes>
Dumbo wouldn't have been eligible. ;) |
17
| mawnck
Fri 10/9/2009 3:39p | >>Dumbo wouldn't have been eligible. ;) <<
If it had a modern credit roll it would have been. |
18
| mawnck
Thu 10/22/2009 10:22p | I just got my email notification that Tink 2 is being screened for ASIFA-Hollywood members at the Mann's Chinese 6 in a couple weeks. ASIFA-Hollywood votes on the Annie Awards.
This would be considered kind of weird if they were entering it as direct to video, but totally normal if it's a theatrical feature. |
19
| mawnck
Tue 10/27/2009 1:45p | The 5 nominee thing is looking less and less likely.
Word is that they've decided to wait until next year for "A Town Called Panic." And the distributors of "Evangelion" have been informed that it isn't eligible because of its release in Japan in 2007. (There's a time limit from initial worldwide release to Oscar qualifying run, and apparently "Evangelion" missed it.)
There's something called "The Missing Lynx" that's supposed to get a qualifying run starting November 13th. "Tink 2" is assumed by all to be a go. And word is that they've decided to submit "A Christmas Carol" to see what happens. But we'll still need a dark horse or two to pop up out of nowhere to get our 5 noms. Possible candidates being discussed for various reasons are:
G-Force (oh God ... )
Alvin and the Chipmunks - The Squeak-uel
Avatar
The Haunted World of El Superbeasto
The Illusionist
The Secret of Kells
My Dog Tulip
The list above represents the scuttlebutt on various blogs and such, and does not necessarily represent the opinions of mawnck, his staff or management. Heck, I've never even HEARD of "My Dog Tulip." |
20
| batsu
Fri 10/30/2009 4:02p | I hope The Secret of Kelis is submitted, I think it has a real chance if there are 5 nominees. |
