Award archives...

Post by **Rodney** » January 26th, 2009, 10:51 am

I don't think Bolt's nomination was a big surprise. Ever since this category began, they have also looked at the biggest movies for the category. I can think all the way back to the beginning when Jimmy Neutron's nomination was a surprise. It wasn't a surprise because Jimmy Neutron's quality (it was actually quite good), but in general people expected one "artistic" movie to make the cut (ie. Waking Life - which I'm glad didn't make the cut). The first time that happened was when Spirited Away got nominated in the category (and won). It had been a critical hit for sure, but it was by no means the boxoffice success. Then again, that was the one and only year they went with 5 nominees. It won mostly because everyone in the animation community was lobbying for a win for Miyazaki. After that movie, smaller movies (Triplets of Belleville, Howl's Moving Castle, Persepolis) got nominated because the Academy changed their rules for voting, but even Bashir, I think, was a longshot in this category. I think they always go for cute over grim.

Either way, Bolt was a blockbuster and critical hit from late in the year. Horton made money, but it was stuck in the beginning of the year and many people forgot about it. Honestly, I preferred Bolt to Horton, but that doesn't really matter. In the end, it's all about who the Academy preferred.

Post by **Sunday** » January 26th, 2009, 1:43 pm

To compound the politics involved in all of this, check out this idiocy: http://www.variety.com/VR1117998897.html

Post by **Ben** » January 26th, 2009, 2:19 pm

I think, Adam, that it was just a case of it being a very strong year, but one in which enough studios didn't put forward the product to bump up the nominated numbers to five.

That being the case, I'm pleased to see Bashir recognised with its nomination in its category, where it may well win; surely preferable to coming second or third to Pixar's inevitable win?

Sunday, that voting system is <I>nuts</I>!

Post by **Adam** » January 26th, 2009, 2:41 pm

The thing, Waltz With Bashir was eligible in Best Animated Feature as well. It could still have won Foreign and taken a backseat to Pixar. The nomination, for me, is an act of recognition, despite it's chances of actually winning, but oh well, it can still boast the title of being an Oscar nominee...

As far as the voting process, I have always been a proponent of that system. It works to eliminate "filler" nominees. So yeah, an actor can be on everyone's ballot, but that doesn't mean he/she is worthy. It could be the case that he/she is a big name, therefore being added to the bottom of ballots by default. By counting the top choices first, the process is favoring votes that participants really care about, therefore avoiding a popularity contest.

Post by **Ben** » January 26th, 2009, 3:36 pm

...which is sometimes what the Oscars are all about...!

Post by **Adam** » January 26th, 2009, 4:03 pm

Exactly. Thank goodness for the system. Otherwise Clint Eastwood would have made it in over Richard Jenkins and Cate Blanchett would have made it in over Melissa Leo...and The Dark Knight would have made it in over The Reader. haha.

Post by **James** » January 26th, 2009, 9:00 pm

Waltz could have also been eligible for Best Doc but Sony passed.

Post by **Bill1978** » January 27th, 2009, 3:27 am

To compound the politics involved in all of this, check out this idiocy: http://www.variety.com/VR1117998897.html

As an Australian preferential voting makes perfect sense to me LOL and I can see why it's a fair way for the Academy to determine it's nominees .

What is really confusing is the commentthat the voters may not be aware that they need to rank their choices in order of preference. SUrely the nomnation slip would say please rank your choices in order of preference eg 1 = person you like the most etc

I think the Animated Features category is turning into the place where the Academy can recognise the 'popular' films allowing them to ignore the 'popular' live action ones in the Best Picture. Compare the Animated Nominees with the Best Picture nominees and you'll find the ones that a re popular with the public tend to dominate the animation ones. Which I'm fine with personally.

Post by **Ben** » January 27th, 2009, 11:08 am

That's also because, naturally, there are far fewer animated films. And the ones that get limited release are usually not seen by the majority. So slim down the number of films by the highest grossers (and most widely seen) and you get the bigger films as a result. As we've seen it's then only the bigger publicised independent type features (Belleville, Spirited Away) that then snag the "arthouse" nod, again mainly because those films, although limited releases, get the most awareness.

Post by **Rodney** » January 27th, 2009, 3:53 pm

I think for an arthouse movie to get nominated, it really has to be considered the best animated movie to come out that year. Most people who may have liked Bashir enough, might have just put Wall-E in the number one spot (the consensus being that Wall-E was the best animated feature of 2008). Belleville and Spirited Away (and Persepolis last year) were considered by many as the best animated film of their years and so they were nominated. I guess not enough people placed Bashir in their number one spot.

As for the voting process, I do believe that the Animated Feature Branch of the Academy has a viewing committee that narrows down the nominees by voting and you have to see all eligible films before voting.

Post by **Zach** » January 31st, 2009, 11:49 pm

WALL-E is going to score some here. Unlike at the Annies. I look for WALL-E to take the Best Animated Feature hands down.

I'm hoping Presto gets the Best Animated Short though. It was so funny.

American_dog_2008 · Post by **American_dog_2008** » February 1st, 2009, 6:02 am

Horton hears a Who shuld had been nominated.

Post by **Adam** » February 5th, 2009, 11:28 am

Actually Horton Hears a Who and Waltz With Bashir should have been nominated. Blame it on all the studio who didn't submit there animated movies for consideration. There certainly was enough released last year to have five nominees. At least with three nominees, it keeps the category competitive. Then again, it doesn't help when worthy movies get snubbed in the process.....

Post by **Ben** » February 5th, 2009, 1:37 pm

I mentioned a similar point earlier...but apart from some studios not pushing their films forward to create a five-film scenario - which as you say was more than doable - it does all come down to the fact that there can be only one winner.

While I would have appreciated those films getting official nomination kudos, having five releases almost feels like overkill. Although we're seeing more animated films released than ever before, there are still only a handful of serious contenders, and ending up with five slots practically means we may as well say every major animated picture is Oscar worthy.

Although one of my favorite films of the year didn't make the cut, I'm actually feeling that, with three nominations, the first process of discounting the films that would have ended up bottom of the voting pile has already taken place. Whatever else happened, these three films would have likely taken the most votes, with the eventual winner the eventual winner be there three choices or five.

I'm not suggesting Bashir might not have made the cut or even won, but in this case it was down to its distributor to promote it as being eligible. If they did, then it is clear it wouldn't have been seen by enough people in order to qualify or win; if they didn't and went for Foreign Film instead, then that's another blight on the BAF category as a whole.

Post by **Adam** » February 6th, 2009, 10:29 am

Waltz With Bashir was eligible for Best Animated Feature. It was on the final eligibility list with twelve other movies. Once a film gets to that level, there is no more promotion done by distributors. Members of the committee watch the films and vote. Once paperwork is filled out, distributors don't choose where the film gets mentioned. It's up to voters.

Obviously, the problem was that there were only three nominations. Then there is also the larger issue that if there are three well-reviewed mainstream picture in the running, the rule of thumb is that the serious, "adult" option is always snubbed. It's really all about taste and what the animation voters want to promote as their ideal representatives. An R-rated feature has never been nominated, and that's significant. All of the "mature" nominees (Spirited Away, The Triplets of Belleville, Howl's Moving Castle, Persepolis) were made with adult sensibilities in mind, but all are easily watchable for children. Animation with a purely adult worldview Waking Life (in 2001) and Waltz With Bashir seems to be rejected on a steady basis. I have deep respect for this branch of the Academy because I think in comparison to other branches, they get their winners right, but sometimes I think their nominee lists are a bit uninspiring. For every great year of richly selected nominees like 2002 and 2005, there's a year like 2004 when middling choices like Shark's Tale make it in over movies that open up in CANNES! Not that film festivals make films more worthy of awards, but really, do we really need Shark's Tale to be called an Academy Award nominee? I know, I know, it's all about subjectivity, but whatever. Maybe their voting procedures need an overhaul like those of Best Foreign Language Film.