2009 Academy Award Nominations

Mark Harris said:
Avatar got a nod for best cinematography. Why not best make-up?
Click to expand...
Because a) there wasn't any makeup, and b) how much of Avatar was actually shot with conventional cinematography? An hour? An hour and a half? At least 1/3 to 1/2 of that film is live action, is it not?

How much of the film is exclusively animation?

(I guess I'm back on that old "perception vs. reality" thing...) Here's a quiz for you -- how much screen time of "Home Alone" was Macauley duking it out with the thieves? A) less than 10 minutes. Didn't seem like that, did it? Or another: At what point in "Alien" does the first alien actually show up? Might surprise you that the film is halfway over before the first alien arrives.

Point being, there's an awful lot of conventional (or, should I say, real-world) cinematography in Avatar. And, let the record show, that cinematography was all in 3-D. I can see why the academy might nominate Avatar for best cinematography.

Furthermore, isn't the full name of the award "Best Achievement in Cinematography"? I'm not certain, but if so, it would lend more to the notion of why the Academy would consider Avatar worthy of the nomination.
 
Last edited:
I'm guessing Avatar will take home:
Best Picture
Art Direction
Director
Sound Mixing
Visual Effects

The other categories it did well in, but it wasn't a clear huge step above in them.
It was "good enough" in all categories, plus then some exceptional stuff in effects and (most importantly) emotional storytelling that made it a huge hit all around, without being a huge leap in all areas (though certainly in some .. visual effects is pretty much a given isn't it?).

The score for example is top notch - and certainly brings back emotions for those who really "clicked" with the film - but listened to alone, detached form the movie; it's not *that* (oscar winning) special.

- Mikko
 
Barry_Green said:
Because a) there wasn't any makeup, and b) how much of Avatar was actually shot with conventional cinematography? An hour? An hour and a half? At least 1/3 to 1/2 of that film is live action, is it not?

How much of the film is exclusively animation?

(I guess I'm back on that old "perception vs. reality" thing...) Here's a quiz for you -- how much screen time of "Home Alone" was Macauley duking it out with the thieves? A) less than 10 minutes. Didn't seem like that, did it? Or another: At what point in "Alien" does the first alien actually show up? Might surprise you that the film is halfway over before the first alien arrives.

Point being, there's an awful lot of conventional (or, should I say, real-world) cinematography in Avatar. And, let the record show, that cinematography was all in 3-D. I can see why the academy might nominate Avatar for best cinematography.

Furthermore, isn't the full name of the award "Best Achievement in Cinematography"? I'm not certain, but if so, it would lend more to the notion of why the Academy would consider Avatar worthy of the nomination.
Click to expand...

Well honestly, does anyone believe we're talking about the live cinematography?

But even still, my question was more to the point of this: as movies combine more and more digital and real, where do the lines cross? Since motion capture is designed to preserve the performance, but basically dress up the actor, I don't see a huge stretch for looking at that as "digital make-up" just as cinematography can include digital "lighting."
 
Richard J. Johnson said:
I hope hurt locker wins. But I think it's gonna be avatar. I wonder what cameron is gonna come up with for his acceptance speech?
Click to expand...
Well, given his last acceptance, I'm guessing:

"I'm the king of Pandora!"

Blue_Food said:
Does anyone else feel that WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE has been rather unjustly snubbed – not only by the American Academy, but also by BAFTA and the Globes?

Click to expand...

It may have as much to do with poor positioning in the marketplace as anything. A lot of kids went to see it and got freaked (or at least their parents got freaked for them). I think a lot of people felt like they got a bait and switch.

Then again, I felt that way about Sideways, and it won all kinds of awards.
 
Avatar for best picture? Best experience perhaps, best visual effects, art direction, cinematography, etc... but with a plot and characters like that, how did it even get nominated?

I guess it's the ratings. They want people to watch it, so why not throw in some big films...
 
Mark Harris said:
Well honestly, does anyone believe we're talking about the live cinematography?
Click to expand...
I certainly am. It's hailed as the first "real" 3D film. All the live cinematography was 3-D. It's one of the first real 3-D films that isn't a "gimmick" picture like Jaws 3-D or Friday The 13th 3-D or the Hannah Montana 3-D concert. It's supposed to be the film that changes cinema forever and gets audiences to accept and even embrace 3-D. So yes, I think they may very well be talking about the live cinematography, in fact I'd be a little surprised if they were talking about the Pandora cinematography.
 
I'm pulling for Avatar for most technical awards.

The Hurt Locker should get best picture, director, editing, sound, cinematography, etc.
 
I think some of the most cinematographic shots in Avatar are CG.

For example the ECU on Jake's foot in the soil after his first run is a crazy powerful shot.

- Mikko
 
I'm also rooting for Hurt Locker. It's way past time for Kathryn B. to get the acknowledgment she deserves as a director.
 
Hurt Locker by far!
It takes more than 3D to make a film. :)

Avatar was fun and all, but I've seen plenty of motion capture before. Story-wise it wasn't all that interesting.
 
was reading on box office mojo that the reason they up'd the number of nominees from 5 to 10 was b/c of the Dark Knight. And, also to put in 5 films that were box office successes to hopefully draw more viewers in. Traditionally, the highest grossing of the nominated films has been the one that wins. Not always, of course...

Later,
Jason
 
I'm hoping The Hurt Locker gets Best Picture. I was really happy that it won at Director's Guild and also at the Producer's Guild.
 
Hey I was so sure they would snub District 9, I'm so glad they didn't. Still have to see 6 of the 10 best picture nominees... altough do I really have to go see The Blind Side? Really??!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top