Fun Stuff > ENJOY
The Hurt Locker
scarred:
camerawork requires a camera. they won visual effects (and they deserved that one). but designing something on a computer is not comparable to composing, choreographing, and lighting a shot/sequence in real life. they did not deserve a cinematography award because quite simply, there was no cinematography in that film. like i said, they deservedly won visual effects. but giving them best cinematography would be like giving an editor "best original screenplay." it's just not applicable.
JD:
You're arguing semantics
scarred:
maybe. but as a film student who understands how bloody hard it is for DPs to do their job, it's downright frustrating when someone with a fancy computer program swoops in and steals an award they have no business receiving. a programmer doesn't coach the actors, collaborate with the director, aim the camera, adjust lighting fixtures, get a dozen PA's to hold flags, or practice the move. he just presses a button and everything is magical and lovely. i'm not saying it doesn't have merit, i'm just saying it's not the same art.
RallyMonkey:
And really, there's even a huge difference between Avatar and a film like Up. On 3D animated films, there's still someone (well, usually a team of two) that acts in almost exactly the traditional way of a cinematographer. They set the lighting, focus, angles, lenses, aperture, everything. I would rather see that win best cinematography than Avatar, a film in which you can just point a camera in the right direction, then have someone else make it look good in post.
Also, regardless of whether it's the same or not, the images on screen in both The White Ribbon and Inglorious Basterds were leagues better.
JD:
I'm gonna go make a Academy awards thread, hold on.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version