Wednesday, February 03, 2010
Oscars Snub 'Avatar's' Motion-Capture Actors
Backstage: "Although 'Avatar' has blasted through boxoffice records and scored nine Academy Award noms, director James Cameron and producer Jon Landau are frustrated that the movie's actors were ignored by Oscar voters."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'm continually amazed at how much praise 'Avatar' has received. Yes, the visuals and motion capture were unprecedented. Yes, they used the 3D medium to all of it's advantages to enhance the viewing experience instead of for "scaring" or "shocking" the audience. However, I am one of the few who saw this movie in 2D. It was terrible. I walked out of the theater wondering how this man could have dedicated so much of his life to a script that bad. So I am not shocked that the actors were "snubbed". Because they were bad. The script was cheesy, poorly written, and unoriginal. The acting was mediocre. The Producer and Director should be astonished that they got a best picture nomination. I for one will take the Oscars a little less seriously in the future.
I LOVED 'Avatar', not at all for its acting but nonetheless I really appreciated the world Pandora that was created and how appealing this new world and culture was. Having said that, I'm not sure if the acting should have been considered for nomination but after reading the article I feel more in favor. When they compared the enhancement of the actor's features to that of Lord of the Rings, it made me consider the quality of acting and how legit it really is but Gollum was in my opinion a really great character and a role that was really done well. For 'Avatar' though, I think the visual aesthetic of the movie was so strong, so innovative and breathtaking that I didn't even notice the acting, its not a movie that I think of and immediately correlate with great acting.
I agree with Grace. I loved Avatar, but not for the acting. It was an incredibly beautiful extravagant movie, with a point. As far as the actor nominations. I think the lack of is not entirely based on the fact that they were "animated". Evening without the technology, the acting was not oscar worthy.
Maybe the actors weren't nominated for an oscar because their performances weren't that great? I think this movie wasnt about the acting but the use of technology and thus story and other elements were tossed to the way side. But I agree with James Lipton that maybe the problem oscar voters see is that- yes they performed and that performance is theirs but they were aided by technology. It wasnt them in blue makeup and other character elements like making them ten feet tall, but rather the technology that added these much needed character elements to make their character a true Navi. There should be a separate category in the future though. With the advent of technological process continuing in film making it may be a good idea to create a separate category as time progresses.
sure, the acting may not have been award-winning, but i think they hype of the CGI and its 3D release really overshadowed any commentary on the acting. It surprises me that this article is the first i'm hearing about any of the acting done in the movie
Post a Comment