-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Oscars: Best Animated Film
- Thread starter Lance
- Start date
Spielberg is the man behind Dreamworks. I always see Universal and Dreamworks together.
I absolutley hated Shrek, I couldn't sit through it. Bad story, bad humor!
I can sit through Monsters for the animation alone, I am always amazed at what I'm watching, I love what Pixar does.
I absolutley hated Shrek, I couldn't sit through it. Bad story, bad humor!
I can sit through Monsters for the animation alone, I am always amazed at what I'm watching, I love what Pixar does.
NowInc
Well-Known Member
*puts on the geek glasses*
The oscars are supposed to choose a winner based on a LOT of factors...
Story
Technical achievment
Quality
Ticket sales
etc....
Now..I wont go into Jimmy Neutron since there is no way in hell its going to win..so lets dive into the other 2 (from a computer animators point of view)..
Shrek::
"OK" story (story wise it was a total spoof..total lack of originality and a lot of dry/re-used humor)...mostly done to poke fun at disney (gee..i wonder why...*cough* Katzenburg)
Animation standpoint - Very clean animation..a few "errors" here and there but were very nicely covered up...
Technical aspect - Uhhh...not very impressive. Yes..pretty movie..but they didnt really invent anything new. At least dreamworks didnt...PDI (the company that did a good portion of the work FOR dreamworks) invented the procdural textures and advanced rendering nodes for the trees as well as the "flames". This of course..wasnt the first time this was used however..since PDI does a LOT of car commercials and has used those things in the past. So..they really didnt reach any new levels of technical ability...
Ticket sales - It raked it in..but was it top dog at the end of the year? Nope...
Oooook...now for the other option
Monsters inc...
Story - VERY orignal and nicely written. (No..im not taking their side because of the Disney affiliation or because I did an internship for them when in college). They werent concerned with making fun of another company, and I must say..the ending was done SO well that I was amazed at how well pixar as a "story house" had evolved over the last few years...
Animation - Pixar doesnt rely on motion capture..and instead relys on 2D animators to do all their motion. Thus resulting in a VERY nice display of animation. Virtually flawless, and cartoony..and its very easy to get lost in the movie and forget its an animation..which is what REALLY measures how good it is.
Technical - Ok...I wont go into EVERY new thing they achieved with this..but I will touch on a few of them. The hair simulation was far and beyond superior to what it was designed to do. In Maya (the base program used to do the animation/modeling)..the "fur" features are...well....inferior. They re-wrote it and made it work GREAT...the snow hitting the fur (with snow sticking to it) was perfect proof of that. Enviornment size...pixar NEVER relies on compositing different layers to do an animation scene (crazy..but true)..so they had to build everything in HIGH DETAIL for EVERY scene to get it looking right...that has never been done before either..I wont go into the details of why the collision simulation is spectacular and original either..so just take my word for it. Pixar helped invent the industry..and they always proove that they are "top"...
Ticket Sales - Do you even need me to say it?
Ironically enough..one movie that was TOTALLY left out (due to its failure at the box office..and rightfully so due to a really bad story), is the far superior movie to ALL of the above (for technical reasons)...Final Fantasy...
The oscars are supposed to choose a winner based on a LOT of factors...
Story
Technical achievment
Quality
Ticket sales
etc....
Now..I wont go into Jimmy Neutron since there is no way in hell its going to win..so lets dive into the other 2 (from a computer animators point of view)..
Shrek::
"OK" story (story wise it was a total spoof..total lack of originality and a lot of dry/re-used humor)...mostly done to poke fun at disney (gee..i wonder why...*cough* Katzenburg)
Animation standpoint - Very clean animation..a few "errors" here and there but were very nicely covered up...
Technical aspect - Uhhh...not very impressive. Yes..pretty movie..but they didnt really invent anything new. At least dreamworks didnt...PDI (the company that did a good portion of the work FOR dreamworks) invented the procdural textures and advanced rendering nodes for the trees as well as the "flames". This of course..wasnt the first time this was used however..since PDI does a LOT of car commercials and has used those things in the past. So..they really didnt reach any new levels of technical ability...
Ticket sales - It raked it in..but was it top dog at the end of the year? Nope...
Oooook...now for the other option
Monsters inc...
Story - VERY orignal and nicely written. (No..im not taking their side because of the Disney affiliation or because I did an internship for them when in college). They werent concerned with making fun of another company, and I must say..the ending was done SO well that I was amazed at how well pixar as a "story house" had evolved over the last few years...
Animation - Pixar doesnt rely on motion capture..and instead relys on 2D animators to do all their motion. Thus resulting in a VERY nice display of animation. Virtually flawless, and cartoony..and its very easy to get lost in the movie and forget its an animation..which is what REALLY measures how good it is.
Technical - Ok...I wont go into EVERY new thing they achieved with this..but I will touch on a few of them. The hair simulation was far and beyond superior to what it was designed to do. In Maya (the base program used to do the animation/modeling)..the "fur" features are...well....inferior. They re-wrote it and made it work GREAT...the snow hitting the fur (with snow sticking to it) was perfect proof of that. Enviornment size...pixar NEVER relies on compositing different layers to do an animation scene (crazy..but true)..so they had to build everything in HIGH DETAIL for EVERY scene to get it looking right...that has never been done before either..I wont go into the details of why the collision simulation is spectacular and original either..so just take my word for it. Pixar helped invent the industry..and they always proove that they are "top"...
Ticket Sales - Do you even need me to say it?
Ironically enough..one movie that was TOTALLY left out (due to its failure at the box office..and rightfully so due to a really bad story), is the far superior movie to ALL of the above (for technical reasons)...Final Fantasy...
Lhriangel
New Member
Okay I saw Final Fantasy and the animation was GORGOUS. I don't know the technical terms but yeah. I actually liked the story line. My personal opinion but I like lots of fantasy type things.. (refuses to show you all her books cause you would laugh at her lol)...
I really hope that Monsters, Inc wins because.. frankly I did not like Shrek that much at all. Yes it was a joke among cast members how there were so many references in the movie but still... I did not enjoy it ... and the music was completely unoriginal (always a downside in my point of view for any animated movie)
I really hope that Monsters, Inc wins because.. frankly I did not like Shrek that much at all. Yes it was a joke among cast members how there were so many references in the movie but still... I did not enjoy it ... and the music was completely unoriginal (always a downside in my point of view for any animated movie)
Goofster
Member
Ohh man, while we're on the topic of animation style, wow, does Ice Age look like a step backwards. That's the kind of stuff I expect to see on a computer game. It looks pretty blocky. Well, hopefully after this, if fox keeps up a CG studio, the movie will look better. It makes me wonder, did they just throw this whole thing together after Shrek came out?
NowInc
Well-Known Member
Heeey...I know people who worked on Ice age (Blue sky studios in westchester NY)....they are owned by Fox and for some reason...really lacked here.
Ice age (aside from a few of the character models) looks very plain. It is going to be buried along with Titan AE in the "Why did they make that?" files...
wdwmaniac
Member
A new 'toon: Oscar honors animated features
March 5, 2002 Posted: 3:15 PM EST (2015 GMT)
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- With a Scottish-burred ogre, a bunch of button-down corporate monsters and a kid with a gumdrop hairdo among invitees, this year's Academy Awards will be a bit more animated.
For the first time, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will present an Oscar for best feature-length animated film, a badge of prestige for filmmakers who often have felt their work is dismissed merely as cartoons for kids.
Up for best animated feature are DreamWorks' hip ogre fairy tale "Shrek"; Disney's "Monsters, Inc.", the story of beasties in an energy crisis; and Paramount's "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius," a sci-fi adventure about a whiz kid.
MORE STORIES
• 'Rings' lords over Oscar with 13 nominations
• The nominees react
EXTRA INFORMATION
• Gallery of nominees
• Complete list of nominees
• Play our Inside the Envelope game
• In-depth Special: CNN's Academy Award Spotlight 2002
RESOURCES
• EW.com: All about Oscars 2002
• InStyle.com: Oscars 2002
The academy has singled out a handful of animated films for awards and top nominations, but the genre usually has been relegated to a few wins in the Oscar music categories.
"Animation is considered different somehow than live action. It's somehow for kids and not something that's looked on as seriously as other movies," said John Lasseter, the creative mastermind behind Pixar Animation, Disney's partner in producing "Monsters Inc.," the "Toy Story" flicks and "A Bug's Life."
"But people go to the same theaters to see animation as they do live-action films. They pay the same ticket price, sit in the same seats and eat the same popcorn. Our goal as animators is exactly the same as live action: To thoroughly entertain the audience."
At a different table?
While animators generally are pleased that feature-length cartoons now have their own Oscar, some say animation becomes "ghettoized" when it's segregated with its own category -- like a kids' table lined up alongside the adults table.
Animated films remain eligible for the overall best-picture category. But many filmmakers feel academy members will be less inclined to back a worthy animated film for best picture now that there's a separate animation category.
"Animation is regarded as a genre when in fact it is a technique. I think it is peculiar that a technique is singled out as a separate sort of movie," said director Simon Wells, whose animated credits include "The Prince of Egypt" and "Balto." "That said, if I had a movie that was being nominated for a best-animation Oscar, I certainly wouldn't turn it down."
"Shrek" is one of three films up for the best animated feature Oscar.
Only one animated film has ever earned a best-picture nomination, "Beauty and the Beast" from 1991.
A special award -- a full-sized Oscar and seven miniature ones -- was given to Walt Disney for "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," the first feature-length animated film. Pixar's Lasseter received a special Oscar for "Toy Story," the first full-length computer-animated picture.
"Shrek," considered this year's animated front-runner, was so well received that it might have landed a best picture nomination if not for the cartoon category.
"It is one of those double-edged swords to a degree," said Andrew Adamson, co-director of "Shrek." "It's great that animation is getting this honor, but then, you don't have a best comedy category or a best-movie-with-visual-effects category. In some ways, it kind of delineates animation in a negative way, like saying animation can't compete with other films.
"It would be nice to get to the day where there is no stigma attached. That it's not an 'animated film.' It's just another film."
Big year for animated films
The new Oscar category comes as animated films scored one of their biggest years ever. The combined receipts for the three nominees totaled $600 million domestically. "Shrek," at $267.7 million, is No. 2 among top-grossing animated movies behind "The Lion King," while "Monsters, Inc.," at $252 million, is No. 3.
Last year also produced such technical advancements as "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within," a box-office flop that still raised animation to a new level of semi-realism, and "Waking Life," a film shot in live action then digitally "painted over" by computer animation.
"Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius" was hailed as a clever family film.
"This is like a new golden age of animation," said Albie Hecht, a producer on "Jimmy Neutron." "I can't think of another year where the quality and number of animated features rose to where it is now."
The academy, which has presented an Oscar for short cartoons since the early 1930s, had long considered adding a category for long-form animation.
The hitch was whether any given year could produce enough animated films to make it worthwhile. For decades, Disney was Hollywood's only steady producer of animated features. Even with rival DreamWorks emerging as a major player in the last few years, the academy could have been stuck trying to create an Oscar category with three nominees from a field of just four or five eligible cartoons.
With advances in computer animation, other studios and even low-budget independent filmmakers have jumped into the cartoon business, giving the academy a broader range of contenders. Under the rules for animated films, an Oscar in that category will be awarded only in years that produce at least eight eligible movies.
"It looks now like there's beginning to be enough studios and companies producing animated films that you could have more of a guarantee there would be enough to choose from for the nominations," said Bruce Davis, academy executive director.
A big crop of animated films are coming this year, too.
In mid-March, 20th Century Fox releases "Ice Age," a buddy tale of prehistoric creatures coping with the big freeze. Disney released the "Peter Pan" sequel "Return to Never Land" in February and will follow with the sci-fi cartoons "Lilo & Stitch" and "Treasure Planet." DreamWorks has "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron," an Old West adventure about a wild horse. Paramount is making "Hey Arnold! The Movie" and "The Wild Thornberrys," big-screen adaptations of TV cartoons.
Some of those films are likely to factor into the animated Oscar nominations next year.
"Oscar opportunities don't come along all that often in our lives," said "Ice Age" director Chris Wedge, who won the 1998 Oscar for short animated film with "Bunny." "When we were nominated for 'Bunny,' I thought that was my one shot for an Oscar. It's exciting for us in the animation community to have an award because so much work goes into these movies. The reason you don't see more of them is it just takes so long to make them."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/05/aa.arts.oscars.animation.ap/index.html
March 5, 2002 Posted: 3:15 PM EST (2015 GMT)
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- With a Scottish-burred ogre, a bunch of button-down corporate monsters and a kid with a gumdrop hairdo among invitees, this year's Academy Awards will be a bit more animated.
For the first time, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will present an Oscar for best feature-length animated film, a badge of prestige for filmmakers who often have felt their work is dismissed merely as cartoons for kids.
Up for best animated feature are DreamWorks' hip ogre fairy tale "Shrek"; Disney's "Monsters, Inc.", the story of beasties in an energy crisis; and Paramount's "Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius," a sci-fi adventure about a whiz kid.
MORE STORIES
• 'Rings' lords over Oscar with 13 nominations
• The nominees react
EXTRA INFORMATION
• Gallery of nominees
• Complete list of nominees
• Play our Inside the Envelope game
• In-depth Special: CNN's Academy Award Spotlight 2002
RESOURCES
• EW.com: All about Oscars 2002
• InStyle.com: Oscars 2002
The academy has singled out a handful of animated films for awards and top nominations, but the genre usually has been relegated to a few wins in the Oscar music categories.
"Animation is considered different somehow than live action. It's somehow for kids and not something that's looked on as seriously as other movies," said John Lasseter, the creative mastermind behind Pixar Animation, Disney's partner in producing "Monsters Inc.," the "Toy Story" flicks and "A Bug's Life."
"But people go to the same theaters to see animation as they do live-action films. They pay the same ticket price, sit in the same seats and eat the same popcorn. Our goal as animators is exactly the same as live action: To thoroughly entertain the audience."
At a different table?
While animators generally are pleased that feature-length cartoons now have their own Oscar, some say animation becomes "ghettoized" when it's segregated with its own category -- like a kids' table lined up alongside the adults table.
Animated films remain eligible for the overall best-picture category. But many filmmakers feel academy members will be less inclined to back a worthy animated film for best picture now that there's a separate animation category.
"Animation is regarded as a genre when in fact it is a technique. I think it is peculiar that a technique is singled out as a separate sort of movie," said director Simon Wells, whose animated credits include "The Prince of Egypt" and "Balto." "That said, if I had a movie that was being nominated for a best-animation Oscar, I certainly wouldn't turn it down."
"Shrek" is one of three films up for the best animated feature Oscar.
Only one animated film has ever earned a best-picture nomination, "Beauty and the Beast" from 1991.
A special award -- a full-sized Oscar and seven miniature ones -- was given to Walt Disney for "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs," the first feature-length animated film. Pixar's Lasseter received a special Oscar for "Toy Story," the first full-length computer-animated picture.
"Shrek," considered this year's animated front-runner, was so well received that it might have landed a best picture nomination if not for the cartoon category.
"It is one of those double-edged swords to a degree," said Andrew Adamson, co-director of "Shrek." "It's great that animation is getting this honor, but then, you don't have a best comedy category or a best-movie-with-visual-effects category. In some ways, it kind of delineates animation in a negative way, like saying animation can't compete with other films.
"It would be nice to get to the day where there is no stigma attached. That it's not an 'animated film.' It's just another film."
Big year for animated films
The new Oscar category comes as animated films scored one of their biggest years ever. The combined receipts for the three nominees totaled $600 million domestically. "Shrek," at $267.7 million, is No. 2 among top-grossing animated movies behind "The Lion King," while "Monsters, Inc.," at $252 million, is No. 3.
Last year also produced such technical advancements as "Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within," a box-office flop that still raised animation to a new level of semi-realism, and "Waking Life," a film shot in live action then digitally "painted over" by computer animation.
"Jimmy Neutron, Boy Genius" was hailed as a clever family film.
"This is like a new golden age of animation," said Albie Hecht, a producer on "Jimmy Neutron." "I can't think of another year where the quality and number of animated features rose to where it is now."
The academy, which has presented an Oscar for short cartoons since the early 1930s, had long considered adding a category for long-form animation.
The hitch was whether any given year could produce enough animated films to make it worthwhile. For decades, Disney was Hollywood's only steady producer of animated features. Even with rival DreamWorks emerging as a major player in the last few years, the academy could have been stuck trying to create an Oscar category with three nominees from a field of just four or five eligible cartoons.
With advances in computer animation, other studios and even low-budget independent filmmakers have jumped into the cartoon business, giving the academy a broader range of contenders. Under the rules for animated films, an Oscar in that category will be awarded only in years that produce at least eight eligible movies.
"It looks now like there's beginning to be enough studios and companies producing animated films that you could have more of a guarantee there would be enough to choose from for the nominations," said Bruce Davis, academy executive director.
A big crop of animated films are coming this year, too.
In mid-March, 20th Century Fox releases "Ice Age," a buddy tale of prehistoric creatures coping with the big freeze. Disney released the "Peter Pan" sequel "Return to Never Land" in February and will follow with the sci-fi cartoons "Lilo & Stitch" and "Treasure Planet." DreamWorks has "Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron," an Old West adventure about a wild horse. Paramount is making "Hey Arnold! The Movie" and "The Wild Thornberrys," big-screen adaptations of TV cartoons.
Some of those films are likely to factor into the animated Oscar nominations next year.
"Oscar opportunities don't come along all that often in our lives," said "Ice Age" director Chris Wedge, who won the 1998 Oscar for short animated film with "Bunny." "When we were nominated for 'Bunny,' I thought that was my one shot for an Oscar. It's exciting for us in the animation community to have an award because so much work goes into these movies. The reason you don't see more of them is it just takes so long to make them."
http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/05/aa.arts.oscars.animation.ap/index.html
NowInc
Well-Known Member
I know of a project that Pixar is working on that could quite possibly be the first animated film to be up for a "Best film of the year" oscar...since I really cant mention it (as usually is the case when it comes to films still in stage 1 production phase), I will just tell you that its going to truely be a work or art with enough of a story behind it to push it past the "animated film" catagory...