comment #1

drbob says ...

". . . an animated film has never gotten Best Picture and I always wondered was there not an appetite?"

What's he talking about? Avatar just won last year.

comment #2

Mr Hooper says ...

Avatar didn't win. It was nominated, however, so your point stands.

comment #3

berg says ...

TS3 is okay but it isn't even as good as BOLT! ... heck, the documentary Waking Sleeping Beauty is better than TS3 ... if TS3 wins a critics group award for best picture it suggests that that group didn't see a lot of films

comment #4

Mr. F. says ...

Dr. Bob -- er, it was Hurt Locker that won last year, not Avatar.

But in your joke, you bring up a good discussion point: what's the line on FX-heavy pictures with some human actors; some practical sets; but a majority of digital FX, created entirely inside computers? Why WASN'T Avatar nominated in the Best Animated Feature category? Because it was more animated than live-action...

comment #5

themodernage says ...

I'm not sure why you have such a vendetta against animated films, always looking at them as second class citizens. Should a documentary or foreign language film not be allowed to be Best Picture either? A film is a film. As Brad Bird says "Animation is not a genre, it's an art form." If Toy Story 3 was one of the best films of the year, it should be nominated for that. End of story.

comment #6

Edward Havens says ...

Ricky R. needs to shut his piehole. He's talking the film OUT of a Best Picture win. Let other people tout it for a Best Picture frontrunner. How long has he been in Hollywood anyway?

comment #7

Jeffrey Wells says ...

The Hurt Locker won last year, but I get your point. Avatar was heavily animated, and yet the animation portions were based upon the actions and voices of biological-realm actors as the film sought to mimic real-world textures as much as possible, and it also stepped outside that realm start to finish, weaving in biological reality from scene to scene, ending with that great finale with big Neytiri embracing little Jake.

comment #8

LexG says ...

AMEN to Jeff's rant.

And, no, a documentary by its very nature shouldn't compete in Best Picture. Does 60 Minutes go up against Mad Men for Emmys?

comment #9

drbob says ...

Oops, I forgot about The Hurt Locker already. I don't really pay much attention to the Oscars and other awards nonsense.

But, as others have noticed, my main point is that the concept an animated film will never win an Oscar is dubious at best. How bout The Return of the King. Bet that was about 80% animation.

comment #10

Kakihara says ...

"As on-target as the characters are and as spiritually complete as the film is, Toy Story 3 is a first-class, triple-A fucking cartoon."

So what were Jurassic Park and Star Wars again?
Oh, and, Inception and Black Swan are just remakes of cartoons...

comment #11

Kakihara says ...

P.S. Hurt Locker cribbed that whole resurrecting kid scene from Sky Crawlers.

comment #12

reverent and free says ...

drbob, putting aside the point raised by others (that there's a world of difference between CGI that we're supposed to accept as real images that flesh and blood characters inhabit, and bright and shiny cartoon worlds), RotK was an exceptional case, the first fantasy film ever to win Best Picture, and you have to go back to the 1960s to find the last time a "kid" picture won Best Picture, "Oliver!"

comment #13

Markj74 says ...

Jeff's spot on, the shots of Neytiri entering the lab and embracing Jake at the end were astonishing, a real moment of movie magic.

Oh no, I guess i'm commenting on Cameron again... CitizenKanedforNappingWells will be along in a moment to tell me I don't like any films made after 1985 again...

comment #14

berg says ...

what cartoon is Black Swan a remake of?

comment #15

Kakihara says ...

berg: Perfect Blue.

comment #16

John Cocktosten says ...

Toy Story 3 is a boring retread of the 3 minute sequence from Toy Story 2 where the girl outgrows her toys. While technically well-produced, the movie is seriously uninspired and in many ways a typical unadventurous sequel.

I suppose if you hadn't seen the first two movies you'd think it was great.

After the talking dogs of Up, and a sequel to the similarly uninspired Cars coming up, I think it's reasonable to conclude that Pixar has jumped the shark, artistically speaking. It doesn't mean it's bad work, it just mean that it's starting to decline. I still don't understand why they sold out to Disney. Their bland tentacles are clearly starting to grasp the Pixar core.

comment #17

Kakihara says ...

John: I skipped the second movie, 'cus that one seemed like the cash-in. So maybe that's why I liked part 3. And they sold out to Disney, 'cus no other studio was willing to meet them half-way on their nut-job plan of getting 90% of the profits for their films. That only worked for A New Hope, and no other company is going to fuck itself like that again realizing it could have a similar hit on its hands.

comment #18

George Prager says ...

The ultimate DeeZee post:

Kakihara says ...

Scratch Barbarella. I just checked Wikipedia and found out it flopped. I thought if Howard Stern talked about it in one of his books that everyone else caught it.

Posted by Kakihara at November 19, 2010 11:55 PM

comment #19

Wrecktem says ...

"Ricky R. needs to shut his piehole. He's talking the film OUT of a Best Picture win. Let other people tout it for a Best Picture frontrunner. How long has he been in Hollywood anyway?"

A-fuckin-men. Both Ross and Iger (the CEO of a multinational conglomerate) have been spouting this nonsense, as if they can convince Academy members through press interviews that their film is somehow more worthy than all the other studio campaigns. It shows a deep misunderstanding of how the process works and will do nothing but alienate the membership.

comment #20

lazarus says ...

I consider myself a fairly big fan of animation, enjoying stuff from the U.S., Japan, Czechoslovakia, France, etc.

But as great as some of those films are, there's always a better live action film from the same year. And not that the Academy usually picks the Best Picture each, but there's always one of their contenders that trumps whatever animated standout has risen to the top.

There's one exception to this: Miyazaki's Spirited Away was without a doubt the best film of 2001, 2002, whatever year you want to put it in. It's certainly more than kid stuff in the thematics department, as well as containing some of the greatest visual poetry of the entire new millennium.

comment #21

Rashad says ...

Last I checked if it was the Best movie people saw then it deserves to win.

If Return of The King and Avatar can win for Best Cinematography, there's no reason why an animated feature shouldn't win Best Picture.

(BTW I don't think TS3 is the best I've seen this year but it should be nominated.)

comment #22

Rashad says ...

*couldn't win

comment #23

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

There has yet to be an animated film in the last, oh, thirty years that wholeheartedly deserves Best Picture, so arguing these sorts of things is moot. Some great works, of course, but what deserves to take home that grand prize? Help me out here folks.

That being said, there's more truth and beauty in five fucking minutes of "The Fantastic Mr. Fox" than in the entirety of "The King's Speech."

This has been: my daily anti-"King's Speech" post.

comment #24

Kakihara says ...

Gabe: "There has yet to be an animated film in the last, oh, thirty years that wholeheartedly deserves Best Picture, so arguing these sorts of things is moot."

That's not how the Academy felt when it nominated Beauty and the Beast. Though, if you're going to go that route, again, I can bring up Satoshi Kon's stuff.

comment #25

jesse says ...

Up deserved to win last year. I would've had no problem with Inglourious Basterds, mind, because I loved that movie too, and when it comes down to it, if one of my five or ten favorite movies of the year wins Best Picture, I'm pleased (see also: it didn't really matter to me whether No Country or There Will Be Blood won a few years earlier). But Up was the best movie of the year last year, even (especially) with the talking dogs that for some reason seem to bother a few people around here (or maybe it's just one under different names? I lose track). Why is talking dogs, especially when it's done in sort of a clever, bizarre, offbeat way, so different from talking toys, rats, or, for that matter, Navi or whatever?

Also, Gabe, the point isn't so much that Toy Story 3 is the best movie of the year (it's not my favorite of the year, or my favorite Pixar movie, or my favorite Toy Story movie, although I do think it's great), but that if the producers of Inception or The Kids Are All Right or whatever said that they were trying to bring their movie all the way, no one would say "that's stupid because it wasn't ACTUALLY the best movie of the year." Yeah, no kidding -- there's only one movie any one person is going to think is the best movie of the year if someone is inclined to think that way. But because TS3 is animated, there's this idea that it's particular hubris to say that it "deserves" it while even someone who MERELY liked Inception a lot (and say, considered it one of the five or ten best movies of the year) wouldn't bat an eye about its producers saying the same thing but substituting sci-fi for animation.

Jeff doesn't actually make any arguments here, which is fairly typical. He describes how he feels, but it's based entirely on bizarre definitions of what movies do and what cartoons can't do, based on nothing but arbitrary feelings (very Republican of you, come to think of it).

It's kind of an old-guy thing. My dad feels the same way -- he can't connect to animation the same way as live action, even if he can find it entertaining or fun. Relatively few people born after 1975 or so will have this problem (although I'm sure there will always be some).

That said, even as an animation fan, I don't want D.Z. getting my back on this issue. Nerds who can't shut up about anime are the worst.

comment #26

Bob Hightower says ...

The point about AVATAR is well-taken. Most Hollywood films these days are so full of CGI that they are half-animated films. The lines between biological and cartoon reality that Jeff thinks are so important have become very blurred. So the discussion is somewhat skewed by his false distinctions. I am awful tired of the overuse of CGI myself.

comment #27

Ray DeRousse says ...

I think all of this Best Picture talk for TS3 is coming solely from sentimentality. While it might be one of the best films in a generally subpar year, it's not a particularly great film nor the best. There is a very apparent tiredness in this third film, as well as a notable lack of inventiveness. The film is saved by the lift of the final ten minutes, basically.

comment #28

reverent and free says ...

Yes Bob, but again there's a difference between CGI that's not supposed to look like CGI, and stylized animation.

comment #29

crazynine says ...

Animated films will never win the BP for the obvious, duh-caliber reason: they created a freakin' unique category for animate films, remember?

A bunch of critics got their panties in a bunch over Beauty and the Beast not winning, and thus spent the next decade creating their own award ghetto to ensure animated films got their own respect. They succeeded, and now those same whiners hate it that animated films are trapped in the ghetto they created.

Personally, I have no issue with an animated film winning BP. If it's the best movie of the year, dammit, it's the best movie of the year. Certainly more will be nominated, if only because of the 10 BP nominations now stupidly allowed (what's next, blue ribbons marked "Participant"?).

But these critics can't have it both ways. They bought their ticket, they knew what they were getting into... I say, let 'em crash.

comment #30

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

It has to have real people, dammit!

I would LOVE to see someone try to make a live-action "Cars." I am so stoned.

comment #31

LexG says ...

I watch movies for two reasons: They usually star hot famous chicks I want to bang, and they usually allow me to vicariously live out some fantasy a walking douche like me will never achieve (being a vigilante, being a coke dealer, being awesome, being an assassin, being Tom Cruise, driving race cars, actually having sex with a Caucasian woman)...

Cartoons feature NONE of these elements. Hence they're not real movies to me.

comment #32

Kakihara says ...

Gabe: "I would LOVE to see someone try to make a live-action "Cars." I am so stoned."

I thought there was a live-action Cars: Doc Hollywood.

Lex: Have you seen Wicked City?

comment #33

LexG says ...

"Lex: Have you seen Wicked City? "

I haven't seen ANYTHING animated except Beavis and Simpsons in my entire adult life. Oh, and Beowulf.

comment #34

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

Golgo 13 has that sexy spy stuff, right? I've never seen it.

comment #35

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

D.Z., go the fuck away, no one likes you.

comment #36

LexG says ...

Cars = Doc Hollywood is the first insane DZism that I actually "get."

comment #37

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

...

comment #38

Rashad says ...

Gabe fight back

fight back!

comment #39

Rich S. says ...

The most important distinction between Avatar and Toy Story 3 is that Jeffrey liked Avatar. The amount of CGI v. animation, etc. has nothing to do with it.

If David Fincher were to direct Toy Story 4, we'd see a 180 here.

comment #40

Gabe@ThePlaylist says ...

Mr. Hyde, I am having a terrible night, and that was incredibly mean and unwarranted.

Also, The King's Speech blows.

comment #41

Bubyubb says ...

"and yet the animation portions were based upon the actions and voices of biological-realm actors as the film sought to mimic real-world textures as much as possible"

You could say that about Snow White, which aimed for pictorial realism, or Ralph Bakshi's later films, which were rotoscoped from live action footage (as were the humans in Snow White, for that matter).

I don't think there's a clear line, there's just, we know it when we see it. Only it's increasingly doubtful why, exactly, we're so sure.

comment #42

Bubyubb says ...

"I would LOVE to see someone try to make a live-action "Cars." I am so stoned."

It's called Speed Racer.