Oscars: CGI Seminal Moment

You wonder why 'Avatar' didnt have a chance?

Because the Academy realizes that if they dont put their foot down they are gonna have to give out awards for the next edition of 'Call of Duty'.

Not just they dont like Cameron, they dont like the idea of cheap art. And Avatar, from what I've seen is 'Cheap Art'. Not in bucks.. but rather in concept.

 

'fog. I couldn't disagree more strongly. CGI was huge in Lord of the Rings, which won plenty of Oscars. Avatar took it to the next level, by seamlessly integrating CGI and live actors with 3D technology to create an unparalleled experience. If anything, Avatar suffered from the lack of a category to fully capture its groundbreaking nature.

In 20 years, we'll all look back on Avatar as a movie that changed the industry, up there with Wizard of Oz and Toy Story.

 

Re: RE: Oscars: CGI Seminal Moment

Andy, I'm continually amazed on how you and I can say the same damn thing and you call my conclusion, made on the same basis of evidence, 'disagreement'.

I am saying they dont want any more CGI called 'serious cinema'. You say they will.

We will see.

And please tell me exactly WHAT was groundbreaking about Avatar that couldnt have been done for a video game.

ergo.. Oscars for 'Call of Duty'

 

Don't they already have a technical achievement award for that purpose?

 

'fog. While I am still amazed that you can somehow find agreement in statements that contradict what they are in response to

LOTR took a big step in integrating CGI in a near-seamless manner, not only with Gollum but with the battle sequences. Avatar not only went a step further, but integrated 3D technology in a way, not to create audience reaction with cheesy effects but to add texture to the visual images, a use which had not beforehand been done to such a degree.

This combination of integrated CGI and 3D texturing was not only groundbreaking in its final product, but also in its filming implementation, where Cameron had screens set up so that he could see the near-final product WHILE filming.

So no, it didn't win best picture - it had stiff competition from quality movies. It didn't win some of the other major awards it was nominated for, but this had nothing to do with its use of CGI, but merely with the view that, in that category, at least one other movie/person did it better. Does it deserve a separate category? Possibly; the Oscars went decades without a Best Animated Movie category.

As far as the Call of Duty comments: CoD doesn't integrate live actors with CGI and doesn't use 3D technology to add texturing but yeah, besides that, they're identical!

 

Andy; The name of the thread is 'Oscars: CGI Seminal Moment'.

And I'm not going to get into the merits of the Avatar scenario and script, which many call a remake of Dances with Wolves and Pocahontas. There's very few new plot devices, after all, and 'Oh, Brother' illustrates you can retell stories forever.

Here's what Cameron himself says; '

My reference to Call of Duty relates to everything you describe... each new release is more visually stunning than the last and displays a finer granularity in rendering than the last. And there's the key.
It wont be long until you can make a sequel, game OR movie, using nothing more than stored data, re-rendered.
- Note I'm not comparing visual reality of the games to movies. There's a couple orders of magnitude difference. But only because of the need for interactivity AND the processing power of the game box.
It only depends on how much processing time you can afford. Throw up LOTR all you want, that's history. The Academy members can look at that and Avatar and they dont like what they see for the future.

Right now the key to visual reality in CGI is the ability to put in the little tics and nuances of expression AND the voice looping quality.
How long until Computer simulation focuses on audio?
Tell me you cant visualize a sequel to Shrek with Eddie Murphy's brilliant looped dialogue re-mapped and altered?

Tell me you couldnt do episodes of King of the Hill, Family Guy and Simpsons, right now, without any new actor input.

Like I said.. You can do anything you want in CGI, only a matter of Computer Horsepower and time available.
The more there is of that in any given release the less likely it is to attain recognition as Human Art.

 

So now.. onto our OTHER point of contention:

Bullock- Razzie and Oscar.

Good for her! She previously didnt waste time trying to defend Speed 2. It stunk, she said so.

- She DID show up at the Razzies and Accept
- she brought along a truckload of 'All About Steve', handed em out and said 'THIS TIME, WATCH the damn thing'.

- She said she would show up NEXT year and expected the crowd to admit they GOT IT!

Here's the key, Andy:
- Also won Razzie, with Bradley Cooper, for 'Worst Screen Couple'!!!



Ah, well... some people need a GPS -and- a roadmap.

Further: Worst Actor of Decade: Eddie Murphy!
Over Ben Stiller?!!! you goddabeshittinme!

 

Heck, I'd think actors would welcome the visual CGI revolution. "What, I don't have to sit in a chair for six hours of makeup every morning?"

There's still a FAR cry from CGI enhancement to not needing actors at all. Gollum proved that having an actor behind the CGI makes it better and Avatar only confirmed that. You can still tell whether CGI is done OVER an actor or created from scratch and that will still be the case for decades to come.

re: Razzies

OK, new conversation; I feel like I missed the first half of it (talking to yourself again, 'fog?). About my only comment is this:

As poor an actor as Ben Stiller is, he can at least act. Eddie can't. He's always himself, which worked well in BHC but really hasn't since he cleaned up.

 

Logical Disconnect!!!!! Name a movie Stiller didnt play his schtick!

There ONLY ACTOR in that family.. meaning with any range at all, is Anne Meara. And she aint got much.