82nd ACADEMY AWARD Nominations

[IrishJedi]

I don't think a film with 'flaws' deserves Best Picture...

If that's the criteria then there would rarely (if ever) be a Best Picture... because truly flawless (i.e. perfect) films are few and far between.

The process is pretty simple, however. These are annual awards. Whatever the best in any particular category that year should get the award. End of story.

Out of the 10 films nominated, easy arguments could be made for about 3-4 of them having been the "Best Picture" of the year. And since I would consider THE HURT LOCKER one of those 3-4, I have absolutely no problem with it winning (especially over AVATAR, which wouldn't even make my Top 5). It's really that simple.

As far as snubs, yeah... INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS should have come home with more hardware (particularly Original Screenplay, at least). And DISTRICT 9 coming up empty is also disappointing. But you know what film was truly shut out this year? MOON. There's a film that was better than half of the Best Picture nominees. And that Sam Rockwell didn't even get a nomination is a near crime.

 

[Entropy]

Actually it was a really well done script and how he developed all the characters and played them against each other was truly brilliant.

Agreed. While the structure of IB was interesting and fresh, creating the Hurt Locker story was not as clear or straight forward as the Dirty Dozen riff QT took on. IB was a hell of a lot of fun, but I think they made the right choices with the Hurt Locker wins. Given the nature of this forum, and those it attracts, I'm not surprised to see the stronger love for the flashy Avatar, District 9, and IB type of films over other more dramatic fare.

And yup, Moon and The Road were ones I enjoyed a lot last year. A little surprised as well to see no noms.

 

[IronFingaz]

I was happy with pretty much all winners this year except for Screenplay and Best Picture. Locker didn't hold a candle to Basterds in those categories. I'm actually fine with Bigelow winning though.

Inglourious Basterds

When we look back at this years Oscars and talk about who should have won, it will be Inglourious Basterds, no Avatar.

My hunch is that the Academy wanted to give the Oscar to Bigelow which had a ripple effect of Hurt Locker winning Best Screenplay and Picture by default.

IB's lack of recognition is frustrating to me. It shouldn't live in the shadow of Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill, and a win would have prevented that. The script had such a wide range of characters from different nationalities speaking different languages and for once 90% of the cast didn't sound like Tarantino himself. I'm glad the Hurt Locktards are happy but Bigelow's history making moment shouldn't have rippled throughout the rest of nominations the way that it did.

Take the cinematography as well. It was fantastic and it even featured an appropriately vintage looking Nazi propaganda movie within a movie. It was nice to see Avatar get some props for something other than effects but again Basterds seemed to be a better representation of the craft.

What they said.

Inglourious Basterds FTW

 

[tomandshell]

I'm not very informed, but I was wondering if they were going to give the cinematography award to Avatar, considering how much work was done with computers/motion capture. The bulk of the movie wasn't "filmed" in the traditional sense, and the line between a cinematography award and a best visual effects award seems like it's getting blurred a little.

Hurt Locker, Basterds, etc. involved a director of photography going out on location and getting the right shots with the right lenses and the right lighting. I thought that old school Academy voters might want to stick with the classic approach. Same thing with costumes (although Avatar wasn't nominated)--can you award a movie for outstanding costume design if the costumes were designed but never actually created in the real world? Will a motion capture performance ever be recognized with an Oscar? It will be interesting to see how awards are handled as we move into a more digital future.

 

[IrishJedi]

I'm not very informed, but I was wondering if they were going to give the cinematography award to Avatar, considering how much work was done with computers/motion capture. The bulk of the movie wasn't "filmed" in the traditional sense, and the line between a cinematography award and a best visual effects award seems like it's getting blurred a little.

Hurt Locker, Basterds, etc. involved a director of photography going out on location and getting the right shots with the right lenses and the right lighting. I thought that old school Academy voters might want to stick with the classic approach. Same thing with costumes (although Avatar wasn't nominated)--can you award a movie for outstanding costume design if the costumes were designed but never actually created in the real world? Will a motion capture performance ever be recognized with an Oscar? It will be interesting to see how awards are handled as we move into a more digital future.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Cinematography is the art of lighting and capturing images through a camera lense. Almost all of AVATAR's images were rendered on computers. That it won this award is a complete farce.

 

[occulum]

I still dont think its a complete farce.
I set up 3D scenes to render everyday at work and you have to consider pretty much all the same elements when rendering a scene digitally as you do conventionally.

Lights. Where's theyre placed, pointed. How they interact with each element within the scene. What camera lens you render with. Tracking and movement of the camera in relation to lighting and the scene.

If anything. I find it actually more difficult to render digitally because it can be very tough getting realistic lighting interaction from the textures created in a digital world as opposed to a real world.

You might as well go and tell sculptors who work in Z-Brush they arent sculpting or modeling anything because theyre working on a computer as well.

EDIT: I will say one huge advantage you do have to rendering scenes digitally is the absence of that whole gravity and physical world thing.

 

[Darth Waller]

I'm not very informed, but I was wondering if they were going to give the cinematography award to Avatar, considering how much work was done with computers/motion capture. The bulk of the movie wasn't "filmed" in the traditional sense, and the line between a cinematography award and a best visual effects award seems like it's getting blurred a little.

Hurt Locker, Basterds, etc. involved a director of photography going out on location and getting the right shots with the right lenses and the right lighting. I thought that old school Academy voters might want to stick with the classic approach. Same thing with costumes (although Avatar wasn't nominated)--can you award a movie for outstanding costume design if the costumes were designed but never actually created in the real world? Will a motion capture performance ever be recognized with an Oscar? It will be interesting to see how awards are handled as we move into a more digital future.

I never thought of that when they won, but you're completely right. How did this win over traditional cinematography?

 

[IrishJedi]

I still dont think its a complete farce.
I set up 3D scenes to render everyday at work and you have to consider pretty much all the same elements when rendering a scene digitally as you do conventionally.

Lights. Where's theyre placed, pointed. How they interact with each element within the scene. What camera lens you render with. Tracking and movement of the camera in relation to lighting and the scene.

If anything. I find it actually more difficult to render digitally because it can be very tough getting realistic lighting interaction from the textures created in a digital world as opposed to a real world.

You might as well go and tell sculptors who work in Z-Brush they arent sculpting or modeling anything because theyre working on a computer as well.

EDIT: I will say one huge advantage you do have to rendering scenes digitally is the absence of that whole gravity and physical world thing.

All of that is more Visual Effects than pure Cinematography. That's the point.

If we're going to start blurring the line that much, completely animated films like UP may as well be nominated for "cinematography".

 

[occulum]

how does all the post work done to the film fit in then?
Everybody knows a TON of color adjusting and effects are done in post. That is NOT done on the set with the camera.

 

[DinoLast]

Well you only have to read this article to see why Avatar deserved the Cinematography gong

https://www.vanityfair.com/online/o...r-on-lighting-a-nonexistent-world-in-3-d.html

 

[IrishJedi]

how does all the post work done to the film fit in then?
Everybody knows a TON of color adjusting and effects are done in post. That is NOT done on the set with the camera.

Right. And members of the ASC and BSC have been saying that very thing for years. Now, people are "cheating" with post-production color-correction via computers... and to most DPs, that is not true cinematography.

It's the same with true photographers. Many use Photoshop to tweak things, but ask any professional photographer what a true photograph is and they'll tell you it's one that was captured within the camera itself. Cinematography is the same way. Or, it was supposed to be...

 

[IrishJedi]

Well you only have to read this article to see why Avatar deserved the Cinematography gong

https://www.vanityfair.com/online/o...r-on-lighting-a-nonexistent-world-in-3-d.html

That's still blurring the line by marrying cinematography with digital visual effects.

Is there a single shot in AVATAR that was captured completely in camera? I'm not being facetious... I'm curious. Perhaps some of the interior military base stuff. But you know it didn't win the award for any of that.

 

[occulum]

I dont consider it cheating.
I couldnt care less what means are used to bring a beautiful picture on screen in front of me.

Seems to me like just a bunch of set-in-their-ways old-timers reluctant to embrace new techniques in the changing times.

as I referenced in a prior post. They used digital effects beautifully in Zodiac. I would call that beautiful cinematography. Regardless of alot of it being digital.

 

[IrishJedi]

I dont consider it cheating.
I couldnt care less what means are used to bring a beautiful picture on screen in front of me.

Seems to me like just a bunch of set-in-their-ways old-timers reluctant to embrace new techniques in the changing times.

Actually, it's simply adherence to an art form that has existed for a century.

All of this new technology is great... but it doesn't change what cinematography has always been.

Tom is right... perhaps it's time to start some new technical categories for films that produce fantastic imagery by utilizing more than just pure cinematography.

 

[occulum]

Tom is right... perhaps it's time to start some new technical categories for films that produce fantastic imagery by utilizing more than just pure cinematography.

not a bad idea, but the pure cinematography group would be full of indie movies youve never heard of in about 5 years.... its on its way out and will soon end up as a true "art form" only a select group will still adhere to. And that wont be many wide released films Id bet.

 

[LOTRFan]

Five or so years from now I would be shocked if there weren't entirely new categories formed.

 

[D. Martin]

If that's the criteria then there would rarely (if ever) be a Best Picture... because truly flawless (i.e. perfect) films are few and far between...

The point I'm trying to make is that the Hurt Locker defenders keep saying "Yeah, it was flawed" as a broad dismissive statement. I'd like the Hurt Locker defenders to address what these 'flaws' they can look past are.

It seems to me that it is being used as a way to defend their choice without articulating WHAT THEY LIKED about the film.

 

[Entropy]

You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Cinematography is the art of lighting and capturing images through a camera lense. Almost all of AVATAR's images were rendered on computers. That it won this award is a complete farce.

Meh. The tools change. The job and artistry it requires does not.

 

[Khev]

It seems to me that it is being used as a way to defend their choice without articulating WHAT THEY LIKED about the film.

I think most people who jumped on the Hurt Locker bandwagon did so because it was the frontrunner for preventing Avatar from winning Best Picture. I have yet to hear a single reason why it was actually worthy to win on its own merits.

Out of the 10 films nominated, easy arguments could be made for about 3-4 of them having been the "Best Picture" of the year. And since I would consider THE HURT LOCKER one of those 3-4

I'd put Hurt Locker at 4th best of the year (though I haven't seen District 9), I just wish I could feel that it earned its kudos a little more.

 

[Entropy]

Right. And members of the ASC and BSC have been saying that very thing for years. Now, people are "cheating" with post-production color-correction via computers... and to most DPs, that is not true cinematography.

It's the same with true photographers. Many use Photoshop to tweak things, but ask any professional photographer what a true photograph is and they'll tell you it's one that was captured within the camera itself. Cinematography is the same way. Or, it was supposed to be...

I have heard the same belly aching from editors saying if you haven't actually handled and cut film it's not the same thing as tinkering about on an Avid. The argument doesn't wash for me personally.