2014 Academy Awards: The Official Thread (ALL NOMINEES IN THE FIRST POST)

[Dementeleus]

Maybe if American studios decided to make animated films that weren't just for kids/family friendly, then that ghetto wall would break down too.

[baumer]

Sometimes it helps to remember that the Academy started because the studio execs wanted to mediate labor disputes and improve their overall image, and only later did they decide to start giving awards to each other.

 

Sometimes it helps to remember that not every one of us is as pedantic as you are when it comes to the history of Hollywood. 

[Kalel009Shel]

Are you saying GRAVITY didn't deserve a cinematography win? I think you'll find most people -- including most DPs -- think it was very deserving. CG-heavy, digital, or virtual cinematography isn't considered a negative nowadays.

Well Im a bit in confusion with this one Tele.

 

Can you give Gravity a nod over films with clear beauty and splendor  like great Gasbyt..  I mean in Avatar and the Great Gasby theres a magnificence with the breakthrough use of CGI creations.. Still not so sure what wonders seeing the vastness of space and things blowing up(even though the angles and using 3D and incredible sound to give a claustrophobic experience is up there with my top movie experiences of all time) in 3D count as the beauty and out of this world thrill of the landscape and camera views we are accustomed to seeing with a tradtional Cinematography wins

 

Such as Forrest Gump, Titanic, Ben Hur, Did Braveheart win best cinematography as well.

 

Dances with wolves is another classic winner for this category.  Man Im feeling even more strongly that  Gravity shouldnt  rank with this lot..Avatar definitely created a world never before realized that took you away from your seat and it was 60% CGI..So that deserved all its cinematography awards worldwide in most eyes.

[Kalel009Shel]

Maybe if American studios decided to make animated films that weren't just for kids/family friendly, then that ghetto wall would break down too.

Lol well  I dont consider it ghetto, ... (Wacks telemachos lol) It does seem they put their noses in the air against  slave themes and other astrocities of the world and not rewarding filmmakers that try to show alot of the horrors of history. I would love to see a director show the Crusades and how christanity really got all over the world for insttance. No one has been brave yet to do a big movie on that one

[Kalel009Shel]

Sometimes it helps to remember that not every one of us is as pedantic as you are when it comes to the history of Hollywood. 

LoL Baumer. I Know Gravity winnng so much awards definitely must have made you faint good buddy Jason Baumer man

[Dementeleus]

Sometimes it helps to remember that not every one of us is as pedantic as you are when it comes to the history of Hollywood. 

 

That's true, I'm an asshole.

[Dementeleus]

Well Im a bit in confusion with this one Tele.

 

Can you give Gravity a nod over films with clear beauty and splendor  like great Gasbyt..  I mean in Avatar and the Great Gasby theres a magnificence with the breakthrough use of CGI creations.. Still not so sure what wonders seeing the vastness of space and things blowing up(even though the angles and using 3D and incredible sound to give a claustrophobic experience is up there with my top movie experiences of all time) in 3D count as the beauty and out of this world thrill of the landscape and camera views we are accustomed to seeing with a tradtional Cinematography wins

 

Such as Forrest Gump, Titanic, Ben Hur, Did Braveheart win best cinematography as well.

 

Dances with wolves is another classic winner for this category.  Man Im feeling even more strongly that  Gravity shouldnt  rank with this lot..Avatar definitely created a world never before realized that took you away from your seat and it was 60% CGI..So that deserved all its cinematography awards worldwide in most eyes.

 

For better or worse most laypeople (including me, you, and most Academy members) tend to think the "prettiest" cinematography is the best. But Emmanuel Lubezski is highly regarded in his field, and in order to create cool and believable virtual images, you need to understand light and lighting in great detail... because you're having to mimic and create something that doesn't exist in any way. It's why Pixar (and Dreamworks) brought in Roger Deakins to help them digitally "light" WALL-E and HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, and also why AVATAR and LIFE OF PI and GRAVITY won. Certainly you can have your own personal preference towards traditional cinematography (and I love a beautiful image as much as anyone), but that doesn't mean GRAVITY wasn't worthy.

Edited March 11, 2014 by Telemachos

[baumer]

That's true, I'm an asshole.

 

I think pedantic has this negative connotation to it, but really, all it means is that you are absurdly learned about the topic.  Most of us here at this site are pedantic when it comes to the box office.

[4815162342]

Maybe if American studios decided to make animated films that weren't just for kids/family friendly, then that ghetto wall would break down too.

Testify, brother Edited March 12, 2014 by 4815162342

[Dementeleus]

I think pedantic has this negative connotation to it, but really, all it means is that you are absurdly learned about the topic.  Most of us here at this site are pedantic when it comes to the box office.

 

It just means I vaguely remember something to that effect and can quickly check Wikipedia. But thank you.

[The Panda]

Well Im a bit in confusion with this one Tele.Can you give Gravity a nod over films with clear beauty and splendor like great Gasbyt.. I mean in Avatar and the Great Gasby theres a magnificence with the breakthrough use of CGI creations.. Still not so sure what wonders seeing the vastness of space and things blowing up(even though the angles and using 3D and incredible sound to give a claustrophobic experience is up there with my top movie experiences of all time) in 3D count as the beauty and out of this world thrill of the landscape and camera views we are accustomed to seeing with a tradtional Cinematography winsSuch as Forrest Gump, Titanic, Ben Hur, Did Braveheart win best cinematography as well.Dances with wolves is another classic winner for this category. Man Im feeling even more strongly that Gravity shouldnt rank with this lot..Avatar definitely created a world never before realized that took you away from your seat and it was 60% CGI..So that deserved all its cinematography awards worldwide in most eyes.

I don't know what you're talking about (and it may be the IMAX talking but I saw Gravity in theaters, IMAX, and at home and I still feel this way) but Gravity was breathtakingly beautiful.But what you are talking about is production design, Gatsby (although I personally am not a dang of the art direction because it defies the 20s era) had fantastic looking sets and costumes but the cinematography (actual shots) wasn't all that strong. In actuality Avatar was a fairly weak cinematography winner, especially compared to Gravity and the different groundbreaking shots Cuaron was able to pull off. The imagery of Gravity is what told the story and what added all the depth, the meaning and themes of it are hidden in shots taken. Gravity was a great cinematography winner.Also, as Telemachos said cinematography has a great deal to do with the lighting and creating interesting pictures. For great cinematography you should be able to pause the movie at nearly any point and get an interesting, and good picture that looks as if a professional photographer took it. There is a lot of misconception about the cinematography category because a lot of people (especially in the academy) simply don't fully understand it and just vote for the prettiest looking movie. Edited March 12, 2014 by The Panda

[Dementeleus]

 In actuality Avatar was a fairly weak cinematography winner...

 

I'm not so sure about since, since it had to overcome the "stigma" of being the first winner with mostly CG shots. In addition, I think a lot of people just assumed they shot a ton of plates in rain forests and then added in some "alien" growth here and there, when in fact they built a completely digital world (and light) from nothing. Camera angles and framing are only one aspect of cinematography, of course; how a scene is lit is arguably more important (and certainly under-appreciated).

[The Panda]

I'm not so sure about since, since it had to overcome the "stigma" of being the first winner with mostly CG shots. In addition, I think a lot of people just assumed they shot a ton of plates in rain forests and then added in some "alien" growth here and there, when in fact they built a completely digital world (and light) from nothing. Camera angles and framing are only one aspect of cinematography, of course; how a scene is lit is arguably more important (and certainly under-appreciated).

True but I think the digital creation of all te scenery would be under special effects not cinematography, correct?

[Dementeleus]

True but I think the digital creation of all te scenery would be under special effects not cinematography, correct?

 

On a technical level, yes... but there's also a difference between the modeling and animating and texturing of all the digital models and structures, and how you light all of that. You're talking about someone with a great understanding of light deciding that the highlights of sunlight shining through a rainforest canopy would be X stops higher than the shadows, that the spill would fall just so, and so forth. In real life, of course, a cinematographer would be manipulating the light (and environment) as well, with HMIs, reflectors, flags, and the like... so the difference is really digital tools versus physical ones.

[baumer]

On a technical level, yes... but there's also a difference between the modeling and animating and texturing of all the digital models and structures, and how you light all of that. You're talking about someone with a great understanding of light deciding that the highlights of sunlight shining through a rainforest canopy would be X stops higher than the shadows, that the spill would fall just so, and so forth. In real life, of course, a cinematographer would be manipulating the light (and environment) as well, with HMIs, reflectors, flags, and the like... so the difference is really digital tools versus physical ones.

 

Yep, you pedantic motherfucker.  

[Dementeleus]

[4815162342]

On a technical level, yes... but there's also a difference between the modeling and animating and texturing of all the digital models and structures, and how you light all of that. You're talking about someone with a great understanding of light deciding that the highlights of sunlight shining through a rainforest canopy would be X stops higher than the shadows, that the spill would fall just so, and so forth. In real life, of course, a cinematographer would be manipulating the light (and environment) as well, with HMIs, reflectors, flags, and the like... so the difference is really digital tools versus physical ones.

[baumer]

What do you think of Tele?

 

[Dementeleus]

You're a grown man, baumer.

 

[Dark Jedi Master 007]

Seriously, Tele, what the fuck was that?LOL.In all seriousness, I thought that Gravity's cinematography was brilliant, so I'm not going to argue there.I do have a question though, for you: what are your thoughts on cinematography to help explain meaning? For example, a shot may not be aesthetically pleasing, but if that shot captures the meaning of the film perfectly, is it a great shot. Can a film not look pretty not be technically brilliant, but still win Best Cinematography because the director manipulates his angles to show hidden meaning?