82nd Academy Awards

[Vodo4321]

Originally Posted by lendarios

No, but every time the retake it will be a different facial expression, a different take on the same lines. A hundred different subtle facial expressions that will be different.
Human fatigue sets in if you ask an actor to remake the same thing after x amount of times. It human nature. This does not happens with the the animation. you can be as nit-picky as you want.
"Raise eyebrow a little bit more, now open nostril not as much. Mouth is too wide open, close it a bit. Move the ear forward now." It is the skills of the animator, not the actor.

The scene when she is crying when she losses her father. That was horrible, i couldnt relate to it. It looked as a non-human cry. How is that good acting?

See you keep calling it animation and saying how the animators make the performances. Despite the youtube video's posted here and others elsewhere online (Search making of Avatar). You can clearly see the performances are exactly what the actors are doing. Yes some shit will be lost in translation as the facial structure isnt exactly human, but its still pretty fuckin close. All the videos say they didnt animate shit, its 100% capture. I'm sure they did multiple takes on the mocap stage, so your vaunted "fatigue" and "varied facial expressions" would set in and show on the performance just like a "real" actor.

Now I'm sure you'll bring up "oh sure they SAY its all capture" blah blah. Well no, I cant prove they didnt tweak the shit to hell and back, but to me everything looks natural.

You say the scene where the father dies is horrible. I thought it was really powerful. Am I a sap, easily manipulated by sentiment? Maybe.

Now I'm not saying any of the actors in this movie deserve an oscar for their performances, but you're on the opposite end of the douche spectrum as those who do. At least give it credit where credit is due. You may have thought the performances were horrible and awkward, and that's your perogative. To each their own. But dont take away from the actor's contributions to the film (saying its all animation) cause you didnt like it.

[Aamina]

Originally Posted by Frax

so by your logic star wars is bad as well?

Uh...no, by my logic, how well a movie does is not indicative of its quality.

[Korioni]

Originally Posted by lendarios

The scene when she is crying when she losses her father. That was horrible, i couldnt relate to it. It looked as a non-human cry. How is that good acting?

You realize that she wasn't playing a human, right?

[Vodo4321]

Originally Posted by Aamina

Uh...no, by my logic, how well a movie does is not indicative of its quality.

And our point is a movie that makes $2,204.7m in 2 months is obviously not the steaming turd some people make it out to be. I dont care how damn good it looks, if it was as bad as some people were making it out to be, there'd be NO WAY it'd pull in that kind of money.

Obviously it's striking a chord with a lot of people.

Edit: And yes, I understand movies like Transformers 2 etc made a pile of money. But not the godlike amounts this things pulling in.

[lendarios]

Originally Posted by Korioni

You realize that she wasn't playing a human, right?

These makes an excellent point.

There is no point of reference to gauge the performance of digital animations, when they portrait non human characters.

I can see another human actor crying and I can tell if he looked believable or not because I can compare with my own experience of crying.
I can not do that with Avatar. The facial expressions are distorted to the point that they are not longer human expressions, they are Nav'ii expressions. While they are recognizable like crying, laughing, anger, and so on, there is no other medium that I point and can see and determine yes, that crying was how a Nav'ii cries, how they get angry, etc.

I have to take at face value their performances, since there is no point of reference. Did the actor playing Chubaka do a good job? Who knows? There is nothing I can compare him to validate his acting.

Avatar wins at best special effect of all times, no doubt about it. Best movie this year, possibly and most likely, but that is where the accolades should end.

[Szlia]

That has to be the most retarded post I have ever read in the Movie House.

[lendarios]

Sure. Avatar has not been considered in an acting category in neither the Oscar nor the golden globes, it must be for something.

[OneofOne]

Originally Posted by lendarios

Sure. Avatar has not been considered in an acting category in neither the Oscar nor the golden globes, it must be for something.

The same organizations that snubbed The Dark Knight for a Best Picture nod - surely they are infallible!

[lendarios]

touche sir, touche.

[Wash]

I saw Avatar on the new pirated DVD screener that's out (yay award season for DVD screeners!). Or rather, I saw the first 20 minutes of it, then I got bored and shut it off to go play Scrabble. Just some unbelievably bad writing and acting. This is the part where 20 people tell me it needs to be seen in the theater, but saying that I have to see a movie in a certain way for it not to suck is like saying I have to see it drunk for it not to suck. I understand it's a visceral visual experience and that's why people like it. That doesn't mean it belongs anywhere near the best acting or writing categories (or even Best Picture, or Best Cinematography-- what cinematography? It's animation).

For Best Actor, no one really stands out. George Clooney was good in Up in the Air, but he was just being George Clooney. Jeremy Renner was good in The Hurt Locker, he will probably get the nod. (And that's the only award that movie deserves aside from writing. The camerawork was pure shakeycam hackery, I might as well have been watching a music video. Katherine Bigelow, I think, will win Best Director, and will not deserve it. The performances were good in spite of her constant shaking and zooming, not because of them. I even think The Hurt Locker will win Best Picture, and also not deserve it.)

For Best actress, Meryl Streep deserves it for her perfect Julia Child. She's just a genius, and frigging hilarious. She never wastes a moment of screen time. Everything she does is perfect. She's a legend for a reason. I think she'll lose to Sandra Bullock, though. I haven't seen The Blind Side, but I know the type of movie, I know Sandra Bullock as an actress, and there's no way she deserves it. People say she'll get it just for being in show business for so long, like Julia Roberts, but there's a huge difference. People love Julia Roberts, for whatever reason. Mention her name and every woman I know will say "SQUEEE! I love Julia Roberts!" But no one says that about Sandra Bullock. No one cares. She hasn't been fun on screen since Speed.

For Cinematography, Best Writing, and Best Director, Tarantino deserves it for Inglorious Basterds. Love him or hate him the man's a genius with the camera, with his actors (except Pitt), and as a writer. I don't think the movie's quite strong enough for Best Picture, and it probably won't even win most of those other categories. But, it deserves them. I actually don't even have a Best Picture favorite this year. No 2009 movie grabbed me that much.

Also, Up is way overhyped. The first third was genius, the second third was rote, and the last third was standard cartoon movie action blah blah blah.

[Ham n Cheese]

The first 20 minutes of a screener is an excellent way to have an opinion on a 3 hour made for IMAX/3D movie.

I stopped reading there, I can't imagine the rest of your post is worth my time.

[lendarios]

I guess acting standards are lower for 3 hour movies IMAX/3D then.

What exactly does the cinematography Oscar represents? Best lightning/ scenography / camera shots?

[Castigator]

Originally Posted by Wash

For Best Actor, no one really stands out. George Clooney was good in Up in the Air, but he was just being George Clooney. Jeremy Renner was good in The Hurt Locker, he will probably get the nod. (And that's the only award that movie deserves aside from writing. The camerawork was pure shakeycam hackery, I might as well have been watching a music video. Katherine Bigelow, I think, will win Best Director, and will not deserve it. The performances were good in spite of her constant shaking and zooming, not because of them. I even think The Hurt Locker will win Best Picture, and also not deserve it.)

I haven't seen Coooney in Up in the Air, but I think Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) and Morgan Freeman (Invictus) are both strong contenders, and both with "classic" Oscar roles riding in; Jeremy Renner and the Hurt Locker (in that category at least) is arguably the underdog. Jeff Bridges also has that "been nominated five times but never won" vibe riding. I'm sure it'll make some judges sway his way a bit. Not to mention that he already won pretty much every other award for his role in Crazy Heart.

[Wash]

Originally Posted by Castigator

I haven't seen Coooney in Up in the Air, but I think Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) and Morgan Freeman (Invictus) are both strong contenders, and both with "classic" Oscar roles riding in; Jeremy Renner and the Hurt Locker (in that category at least) is arguably the underdog. Jeff Bridges also has that "been nominated five times but never won" vibe riding. I'm sure it'll make some judges sway his way a bit. Not to mention that he already won pretty much every other award for his role in Crazy Heart.

I forgot about Jeff Bridges. You're right, he is the favorite, he's been around forever and has a lot of goodwill in Hollywood.

[Wash]

Originally Posted by Ham n Cheese

The first 20 minutes of a screener is an excellent way to have an opinion on a 3 hour made for IMAX/3D movie.

I stopped reading there, I can't imagine the rest of your post is worth my time.

You Avatar kiddies are even more annoying than Blizz kiddies.