|
Post by Ziska on Nov 16, 2007 21:23:47 GMT -5
inspired yet again by a poll on my ips home page. the actual question is about Beowulf, and that motion captured animation like it is used in this movie should not count as animation (and therefore not be eligible for the oscar for outstanding animation)
Okay, so the movement is pre existing, but I personally think that this would also disqualify any animation that ever used Rotoscope process (Or whatever it was called when they make films of people doing the action to be animated and essentially drawing over that).
Thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey on Nov 16, 2007 23:02:11 GMT -5
Right, but is IS animated. Whether it's over top of actor's performing on a green screen or not, the final product is an animated film, so in my mind it should for sure be eligible for animation awards. Although I'd prefer if movies weren't separated into category like that, especially for big awards like Oscars and the like. Why can't Beowulf be eligible for best picture, but can be for best animated feature? Not saying it will or should be (I haven't seen it yet!), but I think all films should get the same chance at big awards. But I digress.
|
|
|
Post by Corey Blake on Nov 17, 2007 23:37:13 GMT -5
That is a good point. Why can't a documentary or an animated film be the Best Picture? If you're excluding certain types of movies from the huge mega king of all categories, then really, it's not quite the huge mega king anymore.
As for whether Beowulf should be considered animated, I think so yes. I don't know why they bothered to make it animated since it so closely resembles live action that they might as well have shot it as a live action and used CGI for special effects, but that's another digression.
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey on Nov 18, 2007 10:25:51 GMT -5
Well, I get what you mean about doing it live-action, but I can also understand why they would do a fantasy flick like this. This way, the entire movie has the exact same look. It would flow seamlessly from the actors to the obviously fake stuff (like dragons, mutant children, etc). Special effects now in movies are brilliant, yes, but you can still see the difference between what's an actor/real prop/set and what's digital. I guess Beowulf would be smoother. I'll let you know after I see it Monday night.
|
|
|
Post by Corey Blake on Nov 18, 2007 15:25:00 GMT -5
That makes sense, so then why not have a bit of stylized art to the entire thing instead of making it as lifelike as possible as to make it seem pointless?
|
|
|
Post by Ziska on Nov 18, 2007 15:38:58 GMT -5
At this point, it may well be to see how far the envelope can be pushed. And for me personally, It's a nice touch. There is a fine line between "stylized" and "yuck, what where you thinking?" especially with the details in a movie like this.
Also, I think we all know peopel who would then complain that the company goot too lazy and only made it look half good.
|
|
|
Post by Jeffrey on Nov 19, 2007 21:17:53 GMT -5
Just got back from Beowulf. It was good!!!
|
|