1/18 Oscarweb Round-up

Posted by · 9:56 am · February 18th, 2010

In the Loop(Your non-Harvey-influenced round-up for the morning…)

Is Armando Iannucci planning to take the world of “In the Loop” to HBO? [CHUD]

Bill Mechanic responds to criticism over move to eliminate original song performances. [The Odds]

Actors on an actorless “Avatar.” [Los Angeles Times]

Pete Hammond puts forth the not-so-far-fetched idea that Colin Firth could take the lead actor trophy at the BAFTAs. [Notes on a Season]

Nikki Finke reports on the Oscarcast’s planned John Hughes tribute. [Deadline Hollywood Daily]

Chatting up sound editors and mixers on their favorite sequences. [Variety]

Three weeks to go: Oscar producers share challenges. [Associated Press]

→ 6 Comments Tags: , , , , , , | Filed in: Daily

6 responses so far

  • 1 2-18-2010 at 10:31 am

    Lazarus said...

    At least those personal connections to explain WHY they’re doing the special tribute during the show, but it still bothers me that while legendary filmmakers and actors die every year, someone like Hughes (who incidentally, has been irrelevant for what, 20 years?) gets singled out.

    Looking at this last decade alone, Brando, Newman, Hepburn, Bergman, Antonioni…none of these icons got a separate segment on the telecast. The last person I can remember is Stanley Kubrick, and it’s not a stretch to say that Hughes didn’t make anywhere near the same contribution to cinema.

  • 2 2-18-2010 at 11:31 am

    qwiggles said...

    On the actorless Avatar issue — I remain convinced that the lack of support for the film in terms of nominations is not simply a function of the motion capture. At the end of the day, the performances you find in Avatar just don’t get nominated, whether they are partially animated or fully embodied. Actors tend to nominate their fellows when they got meaty lines and dramatic showcase scenes, and the closest Saldana gets is “I trusted you.” It’s a very good performance for the kind of potboiler screenwriting Cameron trades in, but it just isn’t what the Academy has ever valued.

  • 3 2-18-2010 at 11:46 am

    Megan said...

    Quiggles, you pretty much summarized what my cluttered mind was trying to organize on the subject.

    There IS acting to motion-capture. A lot of it. Look how beautifully Cameron’s work captured every twitch and facial nuances the actors made. Zoe and the others did the handiwork, and shouldn’t be discredited.

    But at the end of the day, you have three actors (Worthington, Saldana, and Weaver) delivering a very poorly-crafted screenplay serving a pedstrian plot. Not one of them could truly bring out the potential of their characters. And for the record, I thought Sigourney Weaver’s character was unbearable…albeit the fault isn’t on her head.

    To answer the question at hand–yes, motion capture IS acting, but it’s only successful when synergy is created from the technology, words, story, and all the the other important factors.

    One word: Gollum.

  • 4 2-18-2010 at 12:52 pm

    Jessica said...

    Re: Motion capture article

    I liked Selick’s comments in the last paragraph. A lot of work is still done by the animators; it’s not like the actors do their thing and the final product pops out. It sounds like it would be more appropriate to create a new category when performance capture becomes more widely used.

  • 5 2-18-2010 at 2:25 pm

    Maxim said...

    To me there is no question that Seldana gave a great performance. We’ve seen many Na’vi in the film but she was special. You could tell she was giving a great perfomance. You could tell.

  • 6 2-18-2010 at 2:47 pm

    Al said...

    Regarding Mechanic, his hints at a rushed oscarcast make me want to put “5 minutes” as my tie breaker answer to Incontention’s oscar pool. I hate him, and I hate Shankman.