Oscar Nominations announced

I enjoyed Warrior more than The Fighter.

I'd accept your reasoning of "a combination of the actor and technology" when it comes to motion capture performances vis-a-vis Oscar nominations. But many voice acting scenarios (such as providing a voice for animated characters) use only the recorded unmodified voice of an actor applied directly to a movie. The only "technology" involved in those cases are the same kinds of voice recording equipment that exist in standard live action movies. The use of technology could not reasonably be considered a mitigating factor in those cases.

Again I suspect that as far as voice acting goes many people don't consider it as "genuine" or worthy of acting praise as an appearance of the actual actor on a screen in a live action situation. The inability to see a live human emoting the words being spoken puts them at a fundamental disadvantage as far as acting awards go.

Well it's kind of the same thing (animation) as motion capture. Except instead of the combination of actor and technology you end up with it being the combination of actor and animator instead. It's the performance of the animated character in combination with the actor's voice.

I can see the point you're making, but I really think it can be different. An animator might (might, mind you) choose to use the physical mannerisms of a person when drawing a character. But as far as a voice actor is concerned their "performance" and/or involvement in the project can be entirely centered on the use of their voice. In motion capture an actor's motion is merged and edited into whatever visual manipulations are being used. It's undeniably the mix of actor and technology Arcanaville was describing.

I simply think that a voice actor has a much more reasonable chance to deliver a unique performance that can be completely credited to them than what happens during motion capture. Either way it's clear that some people have a hard time accepting either endeavour when it comes to Oscar nominations. *shrugs*

I think it's being compared subconsciously to the original Swedish film. Noomi Rapace IS the definitive Lisbeth Salander, sorry Rooney Mara. Now if the original wasn't as well received back in 2009 when it did the rounds over here, this version might have gotten more recognition.

I disagree, I thought Rooney Mara made a better Lisbeth... I'm sorry for the sacrilege I'm making for all the people who are hardcore fans of the Swedish version, but I have to admit I liked the American version better in all respects.*

*I also felt the same for Let Me In when I compared with Let the Right One In.

I'm guessing the reason it's not up for best animated picture is because it's nominated for Best Picture. Unfortunately I don't think it's likely to win Best Picture but what can you do sometimes.

When getting ready for work tonight after five hours of sleep and only two swallows of coffee, I was able to feed, bathe and clothe myself and managed to NOT set the cat on fire, get my hand caught in the toaster or lodge my keyboard in my pants (although that was a close one).

Apparently accomplishing those goals used up what meager mental resources I have so when I scanned through the list, all that caught my eye was the animated category and for some reason my brain burped up "what, no Hugo?", a film btw that I did once mistake for being animated until I saw it.

So please ignore the brain-burp. Do not ignore my advice to see the film in 3-D however, or link my disdain for KFPanda to my mistake.

At least the noms are for sound and visuals, which even a bitter and twisted mechanoid like myself cannot deny were pretty damn awesome.

If they'd been for 'story' or 'acting' then, yes, I'd have been laughing my face off while mashing it into the keyboard.

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

Yes. VERY yes.

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

I love this discussion. I have a good friend that saw the Swedish movies and raved about them. That got me interested in the books. So I read the books, then saw the American version and bought the Swedish version that week. My friend was worried about seeing the American version because they felt the Swedish was so good.

I think if you like the Swedish version you can watch the American version without being put off. I'm not sure which one I'd consider the better film as both are very similar films in tone and quality (some scenes eerily identical and good representations of the book). As someone who's read the source material they both hit and miss some important points from the book. They aren't really anything that hurt either movie but when you see them you go, "Ahh glad they included that in this one, it makes so much more sense" But it's really minutiea to the non-read movie goer. I think the American version tells the story just slightly more accurate to the source material, but I think the Swedish version may feel a bit more "authentic" to the tone of the books (which would make sense). I can outline the notes I took on my phone comparing the two versus the book if anyone is interested.

Who's the best Lisbeth? I don't know to be honest. I went into the American version having been told by my friend and reading reviews of the Swedish version that Noomi Repace was the embodiment of Lisbeth Salanger and came out of it wondering what it is that Repace does that was better than Mara's version. After watching the Swedish version I can't tell you. They both do an exceptional job with a role that is hard, even brutal to play. I think Repace played the part with a little more rage under the surface and Mara played it a little more tragic-cerebral-victim-of-the-system but both are qualities of Lisbeth and only very subtle differences. I think they both did fantastic jobs but I honestly don't think Repaces performance is significantly better than Maras (and vice versa). I will say that the actual Swedish dragon tattoo looked cooler than the American tattoo. Do I think Mara deserves and oscar nom? Yeah, there is so much subtlety to that character it took a great job of acting to pull it off.

It's also interesting that Let the Right One In and Let Me In are discussed relating to it because I think it's a very similar situation for my opinions on them. I posted pretty extensively when Let Me In hit the theaters about the differences, similarities, and preferences. Much like Dragon Tattoo I think they are so close that if you like one you'll at least like the other. It's hard for me to say which I like best as I consider them kind of identical cousins. Where I think they went smart is setting it in the US to at least give it a slightly more familiar tone and I think maybe Fincher could have slightly improved the American version by doing the same without taking away from the story but possibly avoiding some of the comparisons to the Swedish version. I don't know, but I do like all four films and the books.

One thing about books vs. movies. Both Dragon Tattoo movies may actually be better than the source material in that they don't get into a lot of the minutiea of the computer tech or financial journalism that bogged down the book and turned off a lot of people to the series (for what it's worth, the second book doesn't do that). For the movie all we need to know is she's really good at hacking, the types of chips and hard drives and routers really don't matter she can just do it. Me, I like books that go into detail after detail of the setting. It is an acquired taste I do realize but not one I necessarily share with my love of movies and this is one instance where I do probably think the movies (both Dragon movies) tell a better story than the book. But I like having the book as a reference to fill in some of the blanks I think the movies missed. My friend who saw the Swedish movies was pretty interested in my explaining to them some things I felt the movie(s) missed from the books.

Anyway, those are my ramblings on the subject. Mara was a great nomination but I'm afraid she's sitting in the middle of the pack with the Iron Lady an unstoppable freight train.

"Motion capture" is at this point a misleading term - it should be upgraded to "performance capture". When the older technology was able only to render basic movements and stick-figure limbs, it barely counted as computer-assisted rotoscoping. Actors are now able to employ a board array of facial expressions and body language as part of their performances, with a range that's expanded from the subtle to the exaggerated. It's the art of finding a balance between those extremes that separates performance capture from "live" movie acting or mime. When this is done well, it's an amazing phenomenon. Too often, though, either the actors don't full comprehend they need a different style of performance (e.g. Tom Hanks in Polar Express, Jim Carrey in A Christmas Carol, or, frankly, most of Serkis's fellow cast in Tintin), or the directors just assume the animators will do whatever they do with the raw footage (e.g. Beowulf or any number of video game cutscenes).

Here's how Serkis defines what he does:
The Academy didn't have any problem nominating John Hurt in the Best Actor category for his makeup- and costume-enhanced performance as John Merrick in The Elephant Man or the CGI-bolstered Brad Pitt for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. (And it appreciates that makeup and costume design, while crucial to everything we see of the actors on screen, are important enough to merit their own categories without detracting from actors' theatrical talents.) When is it going to realize that performance capture is no less legitimate?

In both motion capture and voice acting there is a performance that they can take full credit for, but the important point is that the character on screen that audiences see is a combination of that unique performance and a separate, supplemental performance.

Its simply a case of 2 > 1. A conventional actor gets a chance to deliver a visual and audio performance which combine to create a single character. A voice actor or motion capture performer gets, at best, to do one of those two. That puts them at a severe handicap, because in a sense they are only playing half the game. That doesn't mean they can't win, but it does mean the remaining performance has to deliver so much more than every other candidate actor's performance for which you have so much more material in general to judge.

The best actor award is technically the best performance by an actor (or actress), and "performances" are judged essentially as portrayals: the character on-screen the actor performed. With animated movies or motion capture, the actor is only responsible for a fraction of the total performance of any one character. And there's no category for best voice performance.

That's true, but rather than suggest this proves the academy believes performance capture is not legitimate, it suggests instead that performance capture requires a similar level of transcending performance as John Hurt.

Benjamin Button is an exception, in that a significant percentage of Brad Pitt's performance occurs with minimal makeup or digital effects, so the elements of his performance enhanced by technology can be seen in the context of his more "raw" performance without it. That frame of reference doesnt exist for performances such as Sirkis' performance in Rise.

Its important to remember that the Academy likes what it likes, and it does things often for motivations other than pure merit. You could argue that the Academy doesn't take performance capture seriously, or you could also argue that even if Sirkis was in an incredibly sophisticated set of makeup and there were no digital effects at all, there was still a good chance he'd have been snubbed simply because that isn't the sort of performance the Academy tends to recognize regardless.

Oh no need to explain. I've made plenty of absentminded/distracted mistakes over the years.

I actually already saw Hugo a few weeks ago and as you said, it's well worth watching. Unfortunately by the time I got around to watching it they'd moved it out of the 3-D theater but I can attest that it's still a beautiful (and well done) film in 2-D.

It's a rather sad statement on our "bread and circuses" civilization that this sort of thing gets this much attention and that they manage to screw it up so badly. Well, it'll be relevant, as long as it can sell advertising. =(

I already said voice actors and motion capture actors are at a "severe handicap" for these kinds of awards. I'm not arguing the reality of that point.

I simply believe you (and by extension the folks in Hollywood) are drawing far too much of a black and white distinction between traditional live acting and all the other forms of "technologically assisted" acting. There are some variants of these performances which are far more "individual contributor" oriented than others, and I submit that the additive technological aspects are so minor in those cases that your full "2>1" characterization barely applies.

In any event the mere fact that Hollywood apparently tends to live in the past and devalue these kinds of non-traditional performances (or at the very least marginalizes them) is part of the reason why I personally pay awards such as these very little attention in general. I think I've seen maybe a total of 10 minutes worth of Academy Awards shows in the last few decades. *shrugs*

Probably toward the end of his career, when they realize that they should've given him an award a long time ago. And it'll be for his most recent role, regardless of how good it actually was compared to his earlier work.

I've seen it and it's well worth your time and the nominations