Tuesday, December 11, 2007

Should Animated Films Qualify For Best Effects Oscars? - SendMeRSS

Animated-Effects-OscarThere is a very interesting question being raised over on Variety today. Should Animated movies also qualify for the category of “Best Visual Effects” along side of non-animated films?

“My job is the visual effects supervisor for ‘Beowulf,’” says SPI’s Jerome Chen. “It’s the same title I had for ‘Stuart Little’ and ‘Stuart Little 2.’ My job function has grown through the years to the point where now, yes, I touch every single frame … but the essence for me, my main function, has stayed the same.”

Moreover, argues “Surf’s Up” visual effects supervisor Rob Bredow, it’s not just the job descriptions that overlap. “The exact same artists and exact same techniques were used on ‘Surf’s Up’ and ‘Spider-Man,’” Bredow says. “They were rendering sand, and we were rendering millions of particles of water. We were literally developing the same tools at the same time.”

When i first thought about the question, my initial reaction was “hell no, it’s a different medium and it shouldn’t qualify”. However, the more and more I think about it, the more it seems to make total sense.

Music in animated films is eligible for nomination right along side of the non-animated films. The musicians score the music the same way no matter if it’s animated or not. The same is true with visual effects artists. They get handed footage (doesn’t matter if it’s animated or non-animated footage) and they apply their digital visual effects the exact same way that they do for either.

So while on the surface it seems like visual effects in animated films should not be considered along side of their non-animated counterparts… when you think about it, there really is absolutely no reason why they shouldn’t be.

What do you guys think? Should Animated films be eligible for best Visual Effects right along with live action films, or should they not? And most important… why?

Link - Comments - john@themovieblog.com (John Campea) - Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:20:25 GMT - Feed (2 subs)
User comment: By: Roguepirate
It's difficult to say, although im leaning toward it not being included. You can't really use music as an example since music is transparent meaning you can compare music between mediums without problem as with story and scripts. VFX is a bit different in that to me it would seem to be a bit more difficult to incorporate effects into a non-animated film than it is to incorporate it into an animated film. And in that sense the visual effects achievement would be in a way greater than the same effect in an animated film. Also to take into consideration is what the award is based upon. If the award was weighted toward visual effects presentation then animated films should not be included. If the award was weighted toward visual effects achievements, then it should be presented to the person rather than the film thus voiding the animation/non-animation gap.
User comment: By: DJ Machismo
Absolutely they should be included.
User comment: By: nbakid2000
Yes, especially with all the CGI that goes into animated films nowadays. Haven't you ever watched an animated film and just been blown away by a new technique they used/developed for the film? Absolutely they should. Or maybe they should have two different Best Effects Oscars...*shrug*
User comment: By: Jim
When you're talking about the same technologies and skills and people, yes, I absolutely think that they should be considered for best visual effects. Standard animation (which has all but disappeared), not so much. That being said, I actually think a movie like Beowulf, pretty as it was, should have a pretty tough time winning. The criteria for the award should include consistency, and Beowulf had more than a few scenes that were kind of jarring in their obvious CGI-ness. Not to mention that it's always more impressive to me when good effects are seamlessly integrated with live action.
User comment: By: Toms
I don't think animated features should be eligible for the best special effects award. The award is supposed to recognize outstanding special effects. In other words, it is supposed to recognize elements of a film that are special, that only appear sporadically to add to the mood of certain scenes. If a movie is comprised entirely of special effects, they can no longer be considered special. Plus, don't they have these sort of technical achievements in the Pre-Oscars ceremony the night before the main event?
Visit here to subscribe to these comments
Sent using SendMeRss.com.
Visit here to unsubscribe from The Movie Blog.
Recommended Feeds/Actions


Información Legal