Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media

Digital Movies, Analog Oscars 125

Posted by Hemos from the walking-the-line dept.
Kappelmeister writes "The idea of giving Andy Serkis a nomination for The Two Towers is gone, but not forgotten. This New York Times article (FRRBBB) examines the many fine lines that the Academy must draw in the coming years: how physical must the set design, the cinematography, the acting and -- as in the case of Donald Kaufman -- the writer be before a film is shunted into a specialty category like "Best Animated Film?" I think that they will continue to fork with the times; there used to be separate Oscars given out for "one reel" vs. "two reel" shorts, color vs. B/W cinematography, and even director vs. assistant director."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Digital Movies, Analog Oscars More

Digital Movies, Analog Oscars

Comments Filter:

  • Well.. you know what they say... (Score:5, Funny)

    by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @04:31AM (#5475408) Homepage
    In times of war, distract the public with bread and Serkises....
  • If it is intended to be viewed as "real" such as the two towers then its not animated. If it is something like Waking Life where its real but animated over then its animation

  • Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gnu-sucks ( 561404 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @04:39AM (#5475420) Journal
    Who cares - best picture is best picture. A lot of work goes into designing real and digital sets. Cinamatography (sp?) you say? Analog and digital, I say.

    Is a movie any more real if you watch it over a vcr or a dvd?

    • Re:Who cares? (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Who cares - best picture is best picture.

      Yeah, but I'm wondering about the best assistant director prize... Do the critics go like, "Yeah, you could really see the brilliant direction assistance shine through in that elevator scene!" or what?

  • Who cares... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by jonr ( 1130 )
    Everybody who is really interest in movies ignores that Oscar thing. It is just so "they" can pat them self on the bak. I hope they don't pull a muscle doing it.
    The escrements coming from Hollywood each year gets worse every time.
    I should put some better arguments, but I just don't find it worth my time. :
  • more chance to earn money [soyouwanna.com] from your co-workers.

    OTOH, besides the money-earning aspect, I really don't think oscars are all that, it's like a bunch of movie people get together and give themselves an award. how about something we get to vote on?

    • Re:the more awards the better (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Backward Z ( 52442 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:22AM (#5475491)
      Hey! That sounds like a great idea!

      Speaking of, have you ever seen that show, Filter, on G4? The one where the viewers vote on top 10 lists?

      Yeah, they're always exactly spot on right.

      What you're saying, here, is that you think Titanic should have won every award on Oscar night, including Best Foreign Language Film and Best Documentary Short Subject.

      People are stupid. People won't go out and see all the movies on the list.
    • Pro wrestling is enormously popular and makes tons of money. Does that mean it has any artistic (or athletic) merit whatsoever? Ditto that for Ba[y|be]watch or any other popular bit of eye candy.

      Media awards should reward artists for making good art, not for pandering to the least common denominator. The reward for pandering to people's base instincts is money, pure and simple.

    • At least most of the people in the acadamy have some notion of art. The general public doesn't even have that. The Oscars are still a step up from the "MTV Music Awards" so let's not try to go populist on it, k?

  • Fine Line (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trotski ( 592530 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @04:39AM (#5475425)
    I agree wholly with this point. The trouble is, with 3d rendering technology creating more and more realisitc images, it will be difficult to tell the difference between animation and live action.

    Maybe it's time for the academy to get with the times and give awards based on context. Even if the movie is theoretically animated, if it looks like live action or is based on live actors, it should still count as live actions. We're getting to the point where theres two different types of digital cinematography: The stuff thats supposed to look animated and the stuff thats supposed to look digital. I mean, most stuff on TV like news or some TV shows are shot in front of green screens with the background added in later. The lines are too blured to try and maintain two different categories.
    • I think AMPAS will probably define the difference between animated and "normal" movies with these criteria:

      1. Regular movies will have actors who are filmed (or shot on movie-quality high-definition video) for the most part; animated movies will have actors who 100% drawn from the start.

      2. AMPAS will probably create a criteria of how many percent of the film's background is real and how many percent digitally-created to quality for a "regular" movie.

      3. You can forget about the idea of the "final" master of the movie being on film; after all, Disney's animated features since The Rescuers Down Under are all stored digitally on the final master (thanks to the CAPS compositing system), and more recent movies are now being done on digital masters (e.g., the two Spy Kids movies and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones).

  • Andy Serksis was excellent. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by heldlikesound ( 132717 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @04:39AM (#5475426) Homepage
    His performance as Gollum ranks in my mind as one of the best character studies in the last ten years, to feel so much pity for the poor creature, yet to then see the evil that lurks in his heart, vastly improved the ability of the film to convey the spirit of the book. In fact, I would almost go as far as to say that Andy Serksis' interpretation of Gollum effected me more that reading Tolkiens description. This would probably be the only case of that, the films usually can only try to compete with my imagination, but for whatever reason, this is one case where the opposite occured...

    December 2003 can't come soon enough!!!
    • This is kind of the definition of fine acting -- the actor reveals more of the text than reading the text reveals.

      Try seeing a Shakespearean play with a really good cast -- yes you read those plays in high school and had the failed-hack-writer-who-is-now-teaching-English explain it all -- but seeing someone like Douglas Campbell [theatrealliance.org] play Lear is a whole different experience.

      Andy Serksis did an amazing job and it should have been recognized with a least a nomination.

    • The character was as cartonish as many we have seen before. Exagarated expressions only possible with animation that no decent actor would like to be associated with.

      Human acting is about people confering human emotions. You can confer those emotions equaly powerfully with animation, but that does not make the animatronics (or call it as you wish) a real human actor.

      These claims are akin to wanting to award for best actor the puppeters that handle Kermit the frog for a riveting performance.

  • Non-digital actors get a lot of help, too. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by $$$$$exyGal ( 638164 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @04:44AM (#5475437) Homepage Journal
    While we are debating whether Andy Serkis was an actor portraying Gollum, I thought I'd throw another question into the mix. What is acting? If an actor does the same scene 34 times, and the movie editor picks a different 2 seconds out of each of those takes to create a 68 second scene, should the actor get the credit, alone?

    Back in the old days, there wasn't nearly as much editing done in the movies, so actors really had to "act". Now-a-days, good movie editors can make the worst child actors in the world look like geniuses. Just nip and tuck out all the legitimate bad acting, and you got yourself a "Best Actor" nomination.

    The point is, in 2003, even the non-digital actors are getting a lot of help.

    • Re:Non-digital actors get a lot of help, too. (Score:5, Funny)

      by User 956 ( 568564 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @04:49AM (#5475450) Homepage
      Now-a-days, good movie editors can make the worst child actors in the world look like geniuses. Just nip and tuck out all the legitimate bad acting, and you got yourself a "Best Actor" nomination.

      Tell that to George Lucas [efilmcritic.com]. But then, maybe that was the edited version of Jake Lloyd's performace as Anakin in the Phantom Menace.
      • George Lucas? But she said good movie editors...
      • Don't be silly -- George Lucas can't get a good performance out of any human actors.
      • Considering that Lucas did a lot of pioneering work in this area when he shot Phantom Menace... In scenes featuring both Liam Neeson as QuiGon and Ewan McGregor as Obi Wan, he would digitally stitch together different takes of the same scene, using part of a take where he liked one actor's delivery of a given line, and part of another take where he liked the other actor's delivery. Nobody can deny that these two men are fine actors, but with the amount of green-screen work in the latest Star Wars movies, there's no doubt that the actors are seriously handicapped. Like other human beings, they rely on visual and auditory cues so they can react intelligently to their surroundings...

        And if the surroundings are being "edited in" after filming, that makes their task a lot more difficult.

        I don't view these techniques as a replacement for real acting skills. Rather, I think they're an important tool to help augment an actor's innate skill on a highly technical production. But no technological crutch will save you when there's bad script-writing and bad acting afoot. (In my opinion, Hayden Christensen [imdb.com] stank on ice in Attack of the Clones -- it's hard to say how much of that was lack of acting skill and how much was having to deal with a crappy script.)

    • Re:Non-digital actors get a lot of help, too. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fruey ( 563914 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @06:20AM (#5475564) Homepage Journal
      The fact that film, as a medium, is not real-time like theatre, opera and other "live" performance arts, means that the judgement is really based on all sorts of things since the days when it became economically feasible to shoot a scene multiple times. Directors are probably getting a little bit too perfectionist because of the latest technologies and taking scenes way too many times, but the actors still have to produce the raw acting.

      Now, as far back as the 30s (maybe further) there have been special effects and multiple takes used in film. Mattes and other painted backgrounds were used effectively in films as far back as the Wizard of Oz. Animation mixed with real acting happened in Mary Poppins, probably before that.

      As long as real actors are being used, and their acting is not replaced by completely computer generated stuff, then it qualifies as "live action" in my book. Even if you edit out bad acting, there still has to be some good acting left.

      Directors already get separate awards for how well they direct. Editors get awards for how well they edit. It's a bit like the old Karaoke machine claim "Makes a good singer sound great; makes a bad singer sound good!". You might agree with the first statement as far as a good singer is concerned, you will probably disagree with the second if you've ever had to sit through some hopeless singer's rendition of "My Way" late at night in a Karaoke bar. I think the same rules apply to cinema. You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

    • Just nip and tuck out all the legitimate bad acting, and you got yourself a "Best Actor" nomination.

      Just remove all the stone that isn't Michelangelo's "David," and you'll sculpt Michelangelo's "David." It's that simple.

      Point taken. No, really -- I get it. Actors are on screen, but really the complexity of the whole process is so great now that big, major release films are more like a complex technical feat made by a team of artisans than a personal work of art by the people in front of the camera.

      (The observation applies more to the overproduced blockbuster than to anything else, though. Indie films are still believers in acting, and they can't afford 60 takes.)

    • Well, I would say actors 'back then' were as good as they are now. Sure, they look much better today, what with editing and effects and polished scripts. But, while they were acting more several decades ago, the overall effect was much weaker. Watch some of the old time movies, and you can't help but cringe, not at the cheesiness or the set, but the acting style. After a 30 second long take, actual acting starts to show through, and frankly, most actors aren't that good.

      It's the long takes that really take good actors, cameramen and directors. The close-to-opening scene in Pulp Fiction for example (where Jules and Vincent walk to the appartment) and a stupid long shot, but you don't really notice it, it's so good. Lesser people would absolutely ruin it.

  • Andy Serkis must be the only "fake" actor who.. (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    had to thrash around in a freakin' cold stream for ages.

  • Suggestions Please For New Award Categories (Score:4, Interesting)

    by fraggleyid ( 134125 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @04:51AM (#5475452)
    How about an award for Best Character in a movie?
    • Best Storytelling

      Most Visually Impressive

      Best Story

      Best live-action

      Best total CG

      Best Cel Animated (hmm, may have a fair bit of crossover)

      Best Movie of the Year (from previous three -- who cares if it's animated or not?)

      umm... late night musings...
    • How about an award for Best Character in a movie?
      How would this be different from best actor and best actress, other than it's one instead of two?
      • Cos Gollum is the Character. The team that went into creating the chracter gets credited. If character is a "pure live actor/actress" then he/she still gets credited

        • misconception (Score:3, Interesting)

          by n3k5 ( 606163 )
          Not really. Gollum is not an entirely virtual/artificial actor, it is only a virtual/artificial puppet, played by a real, human actor (which is remarkable, because often three actors 'play' the body, the face and the voice respectively). The visuals are nothing but costume design and make-up. There already are Oskar categories for that, and there also are categories for the actors.

          Maybe there is a yet non-existant category that would be justified by new animation techniques, but its certainly not 'best Character', since in this field there's no substancial difference to traditionally shot pictures, in which you could also give per-character awards. For example, you might find that Renée Zellweger's acting wasn't the best overall last year and that she doesn't deserve an award as best actress. You might furthermore find that Colleen Atwoods costume design wasn't the best of all and Jordan Samuel's makeup wasn't the best of all, but that the combination of that all was just perfect and therefore the character of Roxie Hart deserves an Oskar as 'best character'.

          That was your suggestion, right? It just hasn't anything to do with digital production, nothing at all.
          • Not having anything thing to do with digital producton is part of the idea. You can abstract away from the techniques used to create the characterisation (digital or live), and concentrate on the artistic merit of the final outcome.

  • Andy Serkis Doesn't Deserve It (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 10, 2003 @04:51AM (#5475453)
    The push to have Andy Serkis nominated for Best Actor was pure and simple a media stunt. The simple fact is getting Gollum onto the screen was a HUGE team effort. You may claim, getting any actor onto screen is a huge team effort and each part of the team is recognized in their own category, but the animators at Weta Digital had just as much to do with Gollum's performance as Andy Serkis did. The media hype (and that's what it is hype, hype intended to create publicity and we all know there's not such thing as bad publicitiy) about Gollum's entire performance being that of Andy Serkis is hogwash. There is a huge ratio of animators to Andy Serkis' at Weta Digital who all contributed directly to Gollum's performance. In fact Peter Jackson personally apologized to the animation team for the hype surrounding Gollum, Andy Serkis and the Oscar nomination. It's an embarassment perpetuated by New Line Cinema and it insults the Gollum animation team at Weta Digital. If Gollum was nominated for Best Actor then it should be a team nomination like Best Visual Effects is and include Andy Serkis and at least the Animation Director, Randy Cook but to try and give it to Andy Serkis alone is unconscionable and I for one am glad the Academy didn't fall for this cheap stunt.
    • I would also think it safe to say, given Serkis were given the Oscar, that in an acceptance speech, he would say something to the effect of, "None of this would have been possible without the hardworking people at Weta Digital who all contributed directly to Gollum's performance."

      I think that it would be considered a breakthrough within the industry, considering a halfway fake character is recgonized as being a force onscreen, by the community and not just the fans.

    • Re:Andy Serkis Doesn't Deserve It (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Gyan ( 6853 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:29AM (#5475497)
      I agree.

      But apart from the fact that it's a team effort, there's a more fundamental reason why he doesn't deserve it.

      Gollum is a cartoonish creature. Sure, he's 3D with imperfect textures and non-mechanical dynamics, but the expressions potrayed by him are more fleshed out than what an audience would expect out of a real human. Real actors have to be nuanced and subtle to express those same emotions and are limited by their physical faces. That restriction doesn't exist for CG faces. If anyone gets an award for Gollum, it should only be the VFX team. I venture that there any decent actor could take Serkis' place as long as the VFX talent remains intact.
      • Did you see the movie shots of Serkis side by side with Gollum? I'd say Serkis played a huge role in Gollum's character
      • I have to disagree with you completely; there are facts disputing your assessment.

        Andy Serkis's movements + facial expressions were motion captured as a basis for the CGI-generated Gollum (who had to be CGI, or at least animated, in order to accomodate the character's inhuman, unhealthy proportions and features).

        Furthermore, the director and VFX staff are on record as saying that while the original plan was to only use Serkis's voice, they made the model _more_ like Serkis in order to better accomodate his facial expressions, and overhauled the production process to accomodate "mo-cap". This involved Serkis shooting each scene multiple times; once on set (w/ other actors), once in the mo-cap studio (to capture his bodily movements), and once in mo-cap "close-up" (to capture the nuances of his facial expressions/movements).

        Oh yes, and he created multiple sets of motions/expressions (and voices!), each with a particular range, to provide for the Gollum/Smeagol character's multiple personalities.

        It sounds to me like his performance made an complex, inhuman character compelling - in other words, he really brought this thing convincingly to life (which, one should note, has not been effectively done before), while pushing the production far beyond the original limits of where they thought that they could go.

        I will not dispute that the animators were able to enhance his performance (especially in regards to inhuman movements, such as some of the climbing and jumping performed by the character). However, all of the evidence points to Serkis providing a true vision for the character, as well as the vast majority of the "raw material" for achieving that vision. Also, many animators are on record talking about how Serkis provided feedback throughout the post-production animation process.

        You say:
        Real actors have to be nuanced and subtle to express those same emotions and are limited by their physical faces. That restriction doesn't exist for CG faces.


        This reflects a naive view of what consitutes a performance; a performance is defined by an actor's choices to create a convincing character in the context of the film the character appears in - an actor who simply uses every expression they have available is not creating a performance; practicing, maybe, but not performing.

        While VFX tools and processes have advanced very far (and create more choices for the animators), most professional animators (especially those on the 3D end of the industry) do _not_ have the acting training to pull off such a character (i.e. be able to consistently make the right choices as to how to use their animation tools to create a performance); now imagine spreading the challenge of maintaining the vision for such a character across (even a well-led) team.

        I agree that the Gollum character has his cartoonish aspects; this does not reflect poorly on the performance, however - the character was drawn this way in the original book. Again, the fact that the character comes across as compelling and complex despite the sheer number of handicaps (repulsive appearance, unsympathetic actions, irritating behaviors) is additional proof of the value of Serkis's performance.

        In any case, Serkis's work added to the final product _and_ demonstrated the importance of the actor to the process. While I'm not an academy member, this sounds to me like the sort of thing that the Academy should be rewarding.

        For reference, check out http://www.lordoftherings.net for some nehind-the-scenes info (incl. QT movies) of the motion capture process. The 4-DVD special edition (yes, its rentable) also includes a long feature describing this process, as well.
        • At some level, a human audience is aware that they're watching a cartoon as opposed to a human. They'll subconsciously accept more fleshed out expressions from a painted/3D face than they will from a real human, even if a human face is capable of the same contours. This is because, the human face in its details and not just its form, is much more familiar to us than a cartoonish face. Our expectations of plausiblity from a real human are different and more exacting based on our prejudices. So, there's a higher bar to cross, before Serkis could impress us as much in an analogous screenplay involving only human characters.

          This reflects a naive view of what consitutes a performance; a performance is defined by an actor's choices to create a convincing character in the context of the film the character appears in

          My point doesn't contradict this. In simple words, the expressions provided by Serkis wouldn't be as effective if we're seeing him in person. A further point being, any other competent actor could substitute for Gollum. The character would be different in feel, but unlike some films where you just can't imagine a different actor in a certain role, Gollum's unique execution of expressions aren't so endearing that a different actor would do injustice to the character.
          • They'll subconsciously accept more fleshed out expressions from a painted/3D face than they will from a real human, even if a human face is capable of the same contours.


            While your statement is certainly true in general, I don't believe that it applies in context; Serkis's performance wasn't just driving Gollum in a cartoon world, but driving Gollum interacting with human actors in real(istic) environments. This is signifcantly more complex and difficult goal. In interviews, Serkis discusses the task of working with the animators to define the correct balance between exaggerated animation and more human subtlety; this isn't something that he had some sort of "free ride" with.

            Furthermore, you seem to be focused on a fairly narrow definition of acting/performance (based on naturalist/realist styles?). There are many very effective styles of performance that are not based on emulating everyday behavior (which varies culture/time->culture/time in any case). You may be interested to check out Japanese Noh or Kabuki theater traditions (a wonderful influence to Kurasowa's film "Throne of Blood").

            In any case, you thankfully move away from the idea that "difficulty of performance" is the main arbiter of performance quality...

            the expressions provided by Serkis wouldn't be as effective if we're seeing him in person


            But you're not seeing him in person, you're seeing it in "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers"; in that same context, you are also not seeing Ian McKellan's real nose, or Elijah Wood at his normal height, or Christopher Lee in his street clothes, or Viggo Mortenstern's usual manner of speech. Why should we judge a performance by its adherence to an arbitrary standard of "realism", vs. the performance's effective leveraging of the artifice of the film in which it takes place?

            A further point being, any other competent actor could substitute for Gollum... Gollum's unique execution of expressions aren't so endearing that a different actor would do injustice to the character.


            In my previous post I pointed out how Peter Jackson & the FX crew were so impressed by Serkis's imagination of the character that they changed their approach (which was originally for Serkis to only supply the voice). Like the performance or not (and you are free to go either way), Serkis was the driving force behind this performance of Gollum; we know this because they changed what they would've done to accomodate his vision. Just as an assistant director works to support the director's vision, the FX team worked to support Serkis's vision.

            While it is possible that the testimony of the director and members of the visual FX team are lies and hype, I'd rather not be so cynical. Besides, this is the first "digital" performance that any film critic has bothered to take serious, positive note of, despite the fact that mo-cap animation has been used for years to enable CGI character animation.

            You have every right to dislike Serkis's performance, whether based on taste or for philosophical reasons. However, it is unnecessary to deny that he was the driving force behind this performance (good or bad), or that he has provided the first "digital" performance noteworthy for artistic reasons, in order to do so.
            • I think we're talking about different points here.

              Simply that psychologically, seeing a real human bounds us to different and more exacting expectations than it does for a non-human form even if it is humanoid in appearance.

              Why should we judge a performance by its adherence to an arbitrary standard of "realism"

              This standard isn't a conscious decision, but an innate prejudice. I don't claim to know what this standard is, but I assert that it exists. Your examples of McKellen's nose or Elijah's height aren't valid because they're still human forms. Another reason is that more or less, those actors err... sucked. The day they create a perfectly photorealistic human actor, that day their behind-the-scenes thespians will be unique and critical in their contributions.

              Although, that day is pretty close [wired.com].
              • I agree that we're discussing two different things; you see "human in appearance or indistinguishable human appearance" as a prerequisite for recognizing an performance as "acting", based on the fact that we are hardwired in ways that make us most attentive to the appearance of other humans.

                I, contrarily, am not so focused on the particulars of the performance's visual appearance, and instead judge based on how effectively and appropriately the performer leverages his/her tools (personal and/or technical) to create a compelling characterization.

                The Academy (an inconstant arbiter, but relevant to this discussion) falls somewhere inbetween our views; they nominated John Hurt for his work in "The Elephant Man", despite the fact that his apperance was completely hidden behind makeup, thus removing his ability to access normal human expressions whatsoever.

                The day they create a perfectly photorealistic human actor, that day their behind-the-scenes thespians will be unique and critical in their contributions.


                I admit that this goal is technically interesting; however, outside of safer stunt work and the recreation of historical figures, it seems to me a mostly empty excercise driven by hyped-up technical goals (or desire for god-like control on the director/producer's parts), rather than artistic potential.

                The use of film to tell stories opens up possibilities to realize and share our dreams; holding up the emulation of reality as the gold standard for this medium fails to recognize this potential.

                While I don;t expect to change your mind, thank you very much for your replies, I find your comments very interesting!
                • I, contrarily, am not so focused on the particulars of the performance's visual appearance,

                  Well, I am. According to what I was taught in comm courses and what this [angelfire.com] page corroborates, 93% of communication occurs non-verbally. Mainly, via body language and voice tone. Voice tones are closely related to facial expressions. Gollum is similar in form, but isn't human. I think, we make allowances for this disparity innately. Visual appearances serve to make you adopt a "mode of observation". A talking animal, irrespective of complexities of character, will never be as well appreciated apart from the novelty and wonder factor.

                  • I, contrarily, am not so focused on the particulars of the performance's visual appearance,

                    Well, I am...


                    Uh, now I think that you're misinterpreting my (admittedly vague) statement; and I don't disagree that, as humans, we read human gestures more effectively than non-human gestures - this is one of the reasons that we anthropomorphize everything in sight). And I would be foolish to dispute the importance of body language, vocalization, etc.

                    What I meant to convey was that I don't pre-judge a performance based on the general physical appearance of the actor's character; rather, I judge based on what the actor does within the constraints of that appearance, and how effective these choices are.


                    A talking animal, irrespective of complexities of character, will never be as well appreciated apart from the novelty and wonder factor.


                    In terms of creating a sense of "pure realism", I am forced to agree; this has been called (in the contexts) the "dancing bear" effect, a term used to denigrate things that barely work at all, but do something so cool/new/neat that we put up with their failures.

                    However, many modes of performance exploit artifice to great effect - as an intentional artistic choice. And while I won't expect you to agree with this, I think that these modes of performance deserve recognition as well (and they do, though less so in more westernized cultures).

                    Getting back to the original focus of the discussion, I believe that Andy Serkis - supported by the WETA FX team - pushed CGI characterization to a new plateau with his performance. While the general visual appearance of Gollum was not 100% convincingly "photo-real", the performance (i.e. motion, vocalizations, and expressions) drew me in to the point that I was experiencing an emotional reaction to something that I knew wasn't real; in other words, a visceral response despite my knowledge that I'm "watching a film". This is what I look for in any performance, and in this case I got it.

                    I presume that you weren't able to get past the artificiality of the character, and thus were unaffected by the performance; or were you affected, but distracted by the artificiality of his appearance, and/or the particulars of the performance? Or am I wildly off-base?

                    • I presume that you weren't able to get past the artificiality of the character, and thus were unaffected by the performance; or were you affected, but distracted by the artificiality of his appearance, and/or the particulars of the performance?

                      Affected but distracted. Not surprising, considering I've been working in 3D animation for past 13 years :-)
                    • Thanks for addressing your personal reaction to the performance; it's interesting to hear the reactions of people with well-thought out concepts of this work.

                      On a side note, it's gratifying to communicate with someone involved in 3-D animation who is also concerned with the craft of performance at an abstract, theoretical level; I hope that this is becoming much more common in the profession. (I studied traditional/experimental animation in the early 90s and keep an interest in the field, but did not continue professionally. At the time it seemed rare to encounter technically able animators with any non-technical concerns.)

      • I disagree; in an earlier post I assembled a long argument to this end, and was modded down. This time I'm just going to point to references, and let them argue for themselves.

        Here's the side-by-side Osocar poster referenced by other posters of Serkis/Gollum, which gives the general flavor of the process for creating Gollum. (however, I think this does a poor job of showing how important Serkis's performance was to creating the character).

        http://www.oscarwatch.100megs18.com/FYC/New_Line/T wo_Towers/lotr10.html [100megs18.com]

        Here's an interview from the LOTR website regarding the process of developing and executing the character of Gollum; click the "Gollum Video" link for an excellent overview of how the Serkis->Gollum process was done; lots of side-by-side video demonstrates just how exactly the gollum performance is based on Serkis's performance. The video also includes testimoney from the FX team as to how important Andy's performance was to their work.

        http://www.lordoftherings.net/film/exclusives/edit orial/becomegollum.html [lordoftherings.net]
    • Maybe yes, maybe not. Suppose that he win the Best Actor Oscar, and when he receives it, says something like "My preciouss Oscar" or something more like Gollum, and then all that have doubts see that he was really the one that did the Gollum acting?

      How far could be this digital animation from makeup?

      In any case, unless you have all the tapes on how was filmed Gollum, you can't tell when something is Serkis and when is the team behind, even if Serkis really did the best acting. It would be unfair, but at least the one you choose will be clear for all why you think is the best acting.

    • The character of Gollum that we all saw on the big-screen could not have been accomplished without both Serkis and the VFX team at Weta. Gollum was not played/created/portrayed by Serkis alone, nor was he played/created/portrayed by the efforts of Weta. Only the combination of their efforts could lead to such a portrayal of the character. When the general public think of the portrayal, they think of the physical acting work done by Serkis, which to his credit, was very impressive. But they forget (or do not realise) the countless number of man hours put into the creation of the character digitally. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the creation of Gollum as an on-screen character was a team effort and cannot be credited to one person alone. And I guess it's easier for the general public to imagine Gollum as being "played" by one person. Most people have no idea about the work involved in digitising a character, and so find it easier to relate to the "character is played by one person" model.
    • While I don't think Serkis deserves to win an Oscar, I think it's fair to consider him for one. In talking with Jason Schleifer [imdb.com], he said that Serkis was instrumental in creating the character. He complained that Serkis' body type was so different from golum that it was initially difficult to adapt the model to the motion capture, so I asked him if it wouldn't have been easier to hire someone else who more closely matched golum (physically). He said that they Andy was so great that they wouldn't have wanted someone else, even if it made their jobs easier.

      So, while I don't think Serkis solely created the character and Weta did a phenominal job, I wouldn't object to having just the actor nominated for a supporting role.

  • More to this than meets the eye (Score:5, Interesting)

    by inkswamp ( 233692 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @04:52AM (#5475457)
    Recall the recent (and pathetic, IMO) outcry from actors against the film S1m0ne [imdb.com] which dealt with the concept of using CG actors in films. There may be a willful attempt to muddy the waters, or at the very least an unconscious desire to leave things unclear in an attempt to shun digitally produced work in film. I find the idea of classifying films based on what percentage contains "animation" to be asinine. Obviously, the solution is to introduce digital categories instead of stomping all over the definitions of live-action and animation, but it seems that there is little desire to recognize digitally produced performance as its own unique endeavor.

    I bet artists who labor over traditional animation probably take offense at the notion of competing with CG and the same probably goes for live-action. Rightfully so. These are three different activities, all perfectly valid in their own way, and they should not be competing against each other. Hollywood apparently wants to treat CG work as the unloved stepchild, constantly pushing it away. No surprise.

    • Actually, they seem to want to treat *all* animation that way, period. _Spirited Away_ really deserves a Best Picture nod, IMHO. Then again, i'm biased. _The Hours_? Jeez.

      I agree with the poster upthread who said, okay, let's give one for best character portrayal, so if it's a live-action the actor stands up, and if it's CG w/ actor the actor and the animators stand up, and if it's cel or CG animation w/o mocap, the animation team stands up. Might be hard to fit all of Pixar on stage, tho... Then one for best cinematography, which basically means who told their story most artfully, and so on. The Oscars, self-congratulatory though it may be, does need to change with the times.
      • _Spirited Away_ really deserves a Best Picture nod, IMHO.

        Definitely. The storyline wasn't spectacular, but the animation was amazing and beautiful, easily the best animated film. I don't really keep up with film awards and whatnot, but was Spirited Away not nominated? If not, you go get the torches and I'll get the dogs and let's hunt down the @#$*-wads responsible for that oversight.

        • _Spirited Away_ was indeed nominated for the Best Animated Feature award, so we'd best resort to hoping and praying that Disney's goons don't bend a few voters' arms to keep it from winning.

          I watched a poor-quality fansub ('alright' for 'all right'), so I missed a lot the first time through and I'm really looking forward to the dubbed version on the DVDs. Dangit, Disney, I live in the frelling Midwest -- KaZaA was the only reason I saw it. I would have had to drive five hours to see it on a big screen! Publicize the film a little *more*, why don't you? (/sarcasm)
      • The Oscars, self-congratulatory though it may be, does need to change with the times.

        They wont, the Oscars are part of the star system. There are lots of awards, (I'm sure there are digital awards), but why "The Oscars" have become the Microsoft of awards is because of stars -- presenting, winning and receiving the awards. They have a separate ceremony for "technical" awards, which they give a nod to with a token clip on the "Oscar night". But really, people want to watch Julia Roberts, not some bearded inarticulate geek, no matter that he brought Helm'sDeep to life. The ceremony is a show.

  • 3D Awards show. (Score:5, Funny)

    by aagren ( 25051 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @04:55AM (#5475461)
    I wonder when we will see a 3D animated Academy Awards show, where Gollum himself could walk up to the podium and thank his animators, the actor who made his moves be so realistic and the computer which raytraced him so well :)

    • Re:3D Awards show. (Score:5, Funny)

      by TopShelf ( 92521 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:52AM (#5475524) Homepage Journal
      No way, Gollum's got to lose the award, so he can jump onstage and bite into the winner, leaving them with a nice bloody stump while Gollum goes through his "thank-yous" while holding the precious statuette...
      • Blockquoth the poster:

        No way, Gollum's got to lose the award, so he can jump onstage and bite into the winner, leaving them with a nice bloody stump while Gollum goes through his "thank-yous" while holding the precious statuette...

        Hey, if the Oscars culminated with someone falling into a pool of molten rock, which went on to tear down the whole room, then I'd watch 'em.


        (With apologies to Jed Bartlett, nee Aaron Sorkin.)

      • Re:3D Awards show. (Score:5, Funny)

        by Big Sean O ( 317186 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @07:12AM (#5475654)
        The Academy... We would like to thanks it, we would.

        NO! Trickies they did, for giving it to Paul Newman... We hates it forever!!!

        Now WE have the precioussss... yes yesssss...

  • hidden roles (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bobba22 ( 566693 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:08AM (#5475473) Journal
    If a character is overly made up, denying the audience the ability to see facial expressions - elephant man - star wars - LOTR, etc, will big name actors shun the roles? IMO, I think not, where a role could be given to a lesser actor, I think that a 'hidden' role would be much more difficult to act in and create a bond with the audience (which really did happen in this case). I think the academy should think of a new category covering these roles. I know the awards are the most hideous form of backslapping but if the point is raised, then this is what they must surely do.

  • Roger Rabbit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by aleonard ( 468340 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:27AM (#5475496)
    Just a question on the "Best Animated Film" category that they put good animated movies in in order to make the Best Picture category otherwise competitive - Which category would you put Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

    I think that the Academy will adapt to the times, and will probably figure out the best awards. And, if not, there's always all the other awards shows, should the Oscars become irrelevant. "Direction," in the common sense is mostly useless, I would think, in a digital production, yet it still has direction of a kind. Camera angles, movement... but not dealing with live actors, or with a certain lighting, or an odd camera angle that is nearly impossible to pull off... none of these are problems with digitial productions. That doesn't dilute their contribution; it's simply different.

    A splintering of categories might be premature, might not. The fact that there were only two contenders in "best animated picture" probably says it was too early. But within a few years, it could be a fully stocked category. If not, they should probably reincorporate it back into the normal categories. It's all about trying to figure out the best distribution of categories and recognizing the diverse talents.
    • . "Direction," in the common sense is mostly useless, I would think, in a digital production, yet it still has direction of a kind. Camera angles, movement... but not dealing with live actors, or with a certain lighting, or an odd camera angle that is nearly impossible to pull off... none of these are problems with digitial productions. That doesn't dilute their contribution; it's simply different.

      Depends a lot on how you define "directing".

      Most laypeople tend to think of a film director as fulfilling the same role of a stage director...it doesn't quite work that way.

      In movies, the director is responsible for the artistic interpretation of the film. Simply put, the writer is responsible for what story is being told, and the director is responsible for how the story is being told.

      Being a director is more than herding actors. That's what the AD is for :)

      My point being, there's just as much "directing" in a CG or animated film as in a live-action one. The specifics may be different, but the director is still the one who is in charge of the overall vision.

      m.

    • Just a question on the "Best Animated Film" category that they put good animated movies in in order to make the Best Picture category otherwise competitive - Which category would you put Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

      Well, certainly not any category with "Best" in the name.

  • google news link (Score:2, Interesting)

    by epicstruggle ( 311178 )
    Here is the link provided by google news to the NY times article:

    In a Digitally Animated World, Oscar Stands Rigid [nytimes.com]

    later,

  • One problem (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mossfoot ( 310128 ) on Monday March 10, 2003 @05:39AM (#5475512) Homepage
    Much like laws and regulations, it is much easier to make them than to take them away. I can just imagine eventually every movie getting award for some category...

    best hand double for a black and white action/comedy
  • I would assume that 'animated' would require pure animation with no physical reality to the stuff whatsoever.

    In the end, though, it'll probably just be intent that matters.
  • The first annual Visual Effects Awards, which was specifically created to honor Visual Effects, had a category for Best Performance by an Actor in an Effects Film. Winners are listed here [visualeffectssociety.com]. Serkis won, along with Elijah Wood and Sean Astin. Even if the academy will not recognize digital performances, other Hollywood organizations will.

  • Another category? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by 90XDoubleSide ( 522791 ) <ninetyxdoubleside AT hailmail DOT net> on Monday March 10, 2003 @07:09AM (#5475648)
    I think you will eventually have to ask whether motion capture should be in a category with animation either; comparing the two techniques is rather like comparing photography to painting. And I certainly don't think we should be looking to the Oscars for leadership; the award has lost what little credibility it ever had as an artistic recognition, and is now just a pat on the back for the latest American box office blockbuster (Gladiator and Shrek, anyone?). If your really wanted to know what the best animated films were, you would go look at the Annie [annieawards.org] winners; I'm sure as digital performances get more common, we'll see some proper awards be given out for them too.
  • If Spirited Away doesn't win Best Animated Feature, the Oscars are a joke.

    • If Spirited Away doesn't win Best Animated Feature, the Oscars are a joke.

      I would agree with you, but you have to admit that Lilo & Stitch is a good alternate choice if AMPAS voters are not comfortable with Spirited Away. It's got everything that a good Disney animated feature should have: excellent storytelling, great animation (especially the watercolor-painted backgrounds), and even excellent musical numbers.
  • Well, everyone remember that he'll have another chance at the next Oscars for Return of the King.
  • The idea of giving Andy Serkis a nomination for The Two Towers is gone, but not forgotten.

    This is the kind of thing we'd discuss for hours in my philosophy classes - Can an idea be gone but not forgotten?
    • no. if the idea has been removed from existence, then de facto it has been forgotten. the converse is not true, however. an idea can be written down and then forgotten, only to be discovered at a later date.
      • Fun!
        But I have a different take. I think that if an idea is written down, the writing is not itself the idea, but just a representation. When the idea is subsequently forgotten, it exists nowhere and is gone. The act of reading the representation, therefore remembering the idea, brings it back into existance. I guess my thesis is that ideas cannot exist outside our minds, although shadows and descriptions of them can.

        Of course, another tack could be to assert that my idea of X (M) is different from your idea of X (Y). This could imply that if M is forgotten, it is gone forever. You could read my description of X and create Y, but never M.

        Even further down the scale of impermanence - we could say that M changes of time. MsubsriptTODAY != MsubscriptTOMORROW. Then every idea, besides those held at this exact instant is both gone and forgottten.

        (I was a philosphy major, so you must forgive me -I never get a chance to use it.)
  • The Oscar ceremony will be delayed and/or moved to a completely isolated location to the initial terrorism reactions of the Iraq war.
  • Around the time of the filming of "True Lies", I read an article about a project that involved photographing Arnold Schwarzenegger from every conceivable angle to create a database of images of a "younger" Arnold. This could be used in future film projects to prolong the lifespan of the aging action actor. If Arnold's arms ever grew flabby, they could "enhance" them with the aid of this database.

    I never saw any follow-up on the story and don't know if it's been put to any practical use... in Terminator III perhaps?

    The point is that in an increasingly image conscious, botox happy Hollywood, I could see this becoming the normal way to make films one day. The voice would be the same, but actor on the screen might be digital construct... a pasting together of old photograph.

    The only drawback to this would be the confusion that it would cause during award ceremonies... the ancient actors collecting the Oscars would bear very little resemblance to the images on the movie screen!

  • The chances of any movie winning the OSCAR in the current dick stroking, I'm an American the rest of you can go to hell, my war toys are bigger than your war toys climate is practically nil. When was ther last time that a good quality foreign film won against an Merkin made movie that could best be described as adequate.

    Lets look at the current crop of candidates using the IMDB vote boards as a point of comparison.

    Gangs of New York gets an average of 7.3 from 9,600 votes(NB vote numbers rounded to 2 significant figures).
    The Ring gets 7.5, also from 9,600 votes.
    The Hours gets 7.7 from a measley 3,600 votes.
    Chicago gets 7.9 from 7,800 votes.
    The Pianist gets 8.6 from 4,300 votes.
    Lord of the Rings: Two Towers gets 8.8 from 39,000 votes.

    LOTR:TTT places 17th in the top 250. It's box office total is 332,000,000 placing it 7th of all movies in box office total, exceeding even the first part of the trilogy. Yet will it get a fair shot at best picture? Of course not, because the director isn't an Merkin and it wasn't made in the land of "you must do what the UN says but we don't have to". Yes, I do realise that there have been movies in the past that should have been given nominations at least. It all goes to show that those that cast their votes don't have a clue about the movies people actually want to see.

    This is, however, pretty damned obvious to any intelligent movie goer forced to step into the constant flow of rank sewage currently flowing out of the bowels of the movie studios like a fetid, stinking stream of diarrhea in order to find an all too rare quality movie.

Slashdot Top Deals

Ummm, well, OK. The network's the network, the computer's the computer. Sorry for the confusion. -- Sun Microsystems

Close