# Oscar watch-along thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [March 8, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674 "2010-03-08T00:41:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Equipoise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/equipoise/32/151_2.png) [@Equipoise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Equipoise)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2010, 10:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674/361 "2010-03-09T10:22:55Z")
cactus waltz, I was very happy for Christoph Waltz. He’s been winning practically everything in sight since last year’s Cannes, and he’s still gentle and humble and witty and grateful by it all. And he’s a hell of an actor. I need to see him in something else so I don’t always think of him as Hans Landa. It’s not a problem for Europeans, but will be for Americans. We have to wait awhile, but he is a major character in the upcoming Green Hornet movie. That’ll help. > [@mhendo](#): > > Remember, just about the first thing that crosses **Starving Artist** ’s mind when he comments on any remotely political or economic subject is, “How can i get a gratuitous dig in against the liberal media, liberal Hollywood, or just liberals in general?” I must have missed something. When did he do that? I don’t much agree that actors and other film workers should be worried about their jobs going anywhere but Canada (rather than in the computer), but it’s a legitimate viewpoint and non-political topic of conversation, though maybe better suited to a different thread. If he’d said something like “I can’t stand those liberal actors like Sean Penn and Tim Robbins, can’t wait until they’re all replaced by digital characters who keep their mouths shut” I can see, but unless I missed a post or some posts in this long thread, I’m not reading those sentiments into what he’s saying. ---
**Author:** ![AuntiePam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@AuntiePam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AuntiePam)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2010, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674/362 "2010-03-09T14:40:44Z")
> [@cactus\_waltz](#): > > I see this thread has largely come to revolve around Avatar. I can see that. But I have to ask: anybody as excited about Christoph Waltz getting an oscar as I am? It was pretty predictable I suppose, but it was so deserving and there was a really tender moment when he recieved the prize. Tarantino was notably emotional. I watched his segment on Oprah yesterday. He was impressive. There was something special, unusual about his demeanor – I think it was his eyes. He was very much “there”, for lack of a better word. Humble and thoughtful and genuine. Very likable. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2010, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674/363 "2010-03-09T18:29:25Z")
> [@ArchiveGuy](#): > > Personally, I think it’s got an ounce of truth for every pound of hype. The media likes nothing more than to find a new technological or industry trend and blow it completely out or proportion. The _Avatar_ phenomenon has made that even easier to do, but like any alleged “game-changer”, change actually comes very slowly, and while there are unquestionably shifts in the industry due to technological advancements, the characterization that people are “running scared” is hyperbole. This isn’t the introduction of sound, where things changed virtually overnight. This is platforms and formats and other work processes that people have been living and working with for years (or decades) gradually making inroads into more and more corners of the craft. But people see it coming and adapt accordingly, and while the technology certainly makes it easier, more efficient, cost-effective and practical, a time where a film like _The Blind Side_ or _The Hurt Locker_ is shot exactly like _Avatar_ was is a long, long time from now, IMHO. FTR, I primarily work in post-poduction, so largely work with professionals who are embracing this change, though I’m still personally rooted in an analog tradition and enjoy it even if it’s becoming, among the younger generation of talent, more the exception than the rule. Thanks for the answer, **ArchiveGuy**. Perhaps I should have expressed the time frame I had in mind in my original comments. I’ve never thought that the changes I described were right around the corner. In my mind it’s still a relatively long way off. The technology needs to become more effective and the costs have to come way down before movies that are virtually all all CGI become the norm. At the time I was writing my first post on the subject I had in mind a timeframe of approximately ten to fifteen years, or maybe even twenty or more before the scenario I described became a reality, and the fear in Hollywood that I talked about was because of the handwritiing on the wall and not because they were in imminent danger of losing their jobs. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2010, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674/364 "2010-03-09T18:37:38Z")
And yes, **Equipoise** is right, my posts on this subject probably belong in another thread. It wasn’t my intent to hijack the thread but just to make a comment about why I thought _Avatar_ was snubbed for Best Picture. Sometimes these sidebar comments take on a life that wasn’t anticipated at the time they were first posted. ---
**Author:** ![MovieMogul](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f08c70/32.png) [@MovieMogul](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MovieMogul)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2010, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674/365 "2010-03-09T19:07:35Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Thanks for the answer, **ArchiveGuy**. > > Perhaps I should have expressed the time frame I had in mind in my original comments. I’ve never thought that the changes I described were right around the corner. In my mind it’s still a relatively long way off. The technology needs to become more effective and the costs have to come way down before movies that are virtually all all CGI become the norm. At the time I was writing my first post on the subject I had in mind a timeframe of approximately ten to fifteen years, or maybe even twenty or more before the scenario I described became a reality, and the fear in Hollywood that I talked about was because of the handwritiing on the wall and not because they were in imminent danger of losing their jobs. Well, I still think that time window is too soon. I’d say double it and maybe we’ll see a real paradigm shift take place. The other thing to remember is that the box office follows the power players. Here are the [biggest box-office actors of 2009](http://insidemovies.moviefone.com/2010/01/04/sandra-bullock-biggest-box-office-draw-of-2009/) > [@](#): > > 1. Sandra Bullock > 2. Johnny Depp > 3. Matt Damon > 4. George Clooney > 5. Robert Downey Jr. > 6. Tom Hanks > 7. Meryl Streep > 8. Brad Pitt > 9. Shia LaBeouf > 10. Denzel Washington While there will always be a place for _Avatar 2_ and _Transformers 3_, the industry is also largely propelled by star power. How many of these actors have ever been associated with CG-heavy projects? Less than half. Most of them, even male stars like Clooney & Washington (who also periodically direct & produce), steer clear of those kinds of films. There may be an eventual tipping point where bluescreen filmmaking becomes so fluid and efficient that even something like _It’s Complicated_ will be cheaper shot in a single room than modest sets and locations. But you still need to get the stars on board, and they will still gravitate towards projects they want to be part of. And for those who feel that performance capture and CG-stagecraft are only appropriate for certain types of films, they are going to be advocates for the type of films (and the type of filmmaking) that they want to make. And the money will still follow. After all, _The Hangover_ made more money than _Star Trek_ last year, and I think it’s going to be more than a single generation before artists start accepting this new order that Cameron & co. are trying to kickstart as the norm. While the technology is truly amazing in the leaps & bounds that are occurring (especially in TV, where there are more unforgiving schedules and deadlines), crossing the threshhold from fantasy/adventure into kitchen sink dramas with the application of this technology in an everyday sense is still, I think, a long time coming. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674/366 "2010-03-09T20:13:03Z")
Why does it have to be either/or? Like live theater, when threatened with moving pictures, and then film with TV–sure, some business MAY be lost due to the emphasis on CG etc, but I see it as more of an expanding of the market, not a death blow to the live actor wearing real clothes making a movie world. There is room for types of movies and there will be room (and a market) for the types of film not yet made. I don’t see Hollywood as being scared of Cameron’s new tech at all. I see members of the Academy lauding the tech achievements, while recognizing that the plot and characterizations in _Avatar_ were average. I have no desire to see the PLOT of _Avatar_ again–I have every desire to enter that world again. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 9, 2010, 8:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674/367 "2010-03-09T20:26:13Z")
> [@DanBlather](#): > > All of those had camera shots as well for the live actors and probably for the notion capture actors as well. But none of those photographic images ever made it onto the screen. They were simply a means of data collection. ---
**Author:** ![jordanr2](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/838e76/32.png) [@jordanr2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jordanr2)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674/368 "2010-03-10T04:41:41Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > Freed from the need to deal with all of the backgound activity that surrounds the acting process, the director will be able to spend all his or her time working with the actors. This means the director can work the actors all day, thus ratcheting up their workload considerably and also requiring their services for far less time - the result being that they may only be needed for a number of days rather than weeks or months. The director can then take their performances and stitch them into the rest of the movie that will all be created digitally. > > So what I’m thinking is that this is going to make the work of acting a lot more concentrated and difficult in terms of an actor’s workday, while at the same time making the surrounding environment much more dull and mudane. I expect this will eventually weed out the “personality” type performers, leaving most of the work to be done by journeymanlike actors dedicated enough to their craft to be able to hack acting all day long, and to deliver a believable performance while performing in a dull gray warehouse in front of a green screen. There’s something so troubling about this, though. Obviously acting is both an art and a profession - one at its best rooted, paradoxically, in the experience of both immediate transcendence and numbing tedium, both of which have a lot to do with an actor’s immediate setting. I know the Method canard that a great actor can achieve a brilliant performance under most any circumstances given a deep enough well of experience and inner resources for drawing on that experience, but with this aspiration to a purely digital future approach, something is ruined in the organic experience of filmmaking. I mean, I can’t imagine what someone like Cassavetes would have thought of this, or really most of the directors I love (maybe Hans-Jurgen Syberberg would have been on board with it). There are plenty of great actors whom I imagine caught like frightened rabbits in the middle of this hypothetical green-screen approach, and honestly it makes me sad to think of what it could do to their art. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 7:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674/369 "2010-03-10T07:03:27Z")
Starving Artist, I don’t know what you’re setting out to prove here, but you’re taking all of your bizarre speculations and extrapolations far beyond any logical cause and effect straight into scifi nonsequiturland. Is there any chance you’re just taking the piss? A parody of when someone takes some tiny little bit of information and builds exponentially elaborate and teetering towers of cards on it? First off, the concept of “slippery slope” is almost never valid. It’s just another example of humans’ need to see patterns where there are none. Secondly, none of your chaotic fractals of increasing magnitudes of nonsense take into account some basic facts. Just to name one, there’s a thing called a “union.” Unions are very, very powerful in the movie business. None of your postapocalyptic scenarios would stand up beyond the first or second level of speculation in the world of Hollywood unions. Third, every single time, throughout recorded history, any shift in technological paradigm brings the sandwich-board prophets out of the woodwork. Radio starts to play wax cylinders, and suddenly there’s no bigger threat to the sanctity of recorded music. The digital age has turned every movie or music executive into Chicken Little. None of these tech panics has ever proved true. If live theater can survive the advent of film; if painting can survive the advent of photography; if music can survive sampling; then, trust me, cinema will survive CGI. Ultimately each of these is just another tool in the hands of artists and, yes, businessmen. But the revolution is a revolution of technique, of tools. Nothing more. And as such its novelty will wear off–seen the recent non-CGI animated films, made with old fashioned cels instead of 3D rendering?–and it will find its place in the director’s toolbelt just like every other major technological development of the last, what, 120 years or so. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [March 10, 2010, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674/370 "2010-03-10T07:12:57Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > But none of those photographic images ever made it onto the screen. They were simply a means of data collection. There were lots of scenes that had a combination of live actors, physical props, and added CGI effects. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/oscar-watch-along-thread/531674.md?page=18)