The Official Best Animated Feature Thread

[Damien]

Goddamn it.

[OscarGuy]

Before anyone asks, I edited the topic title. I was uncomfortable with the title when it was posted but understood its origin. However, in order to prepare this place for Oscar season traffic, I would prefer not to have objectionable subjects posted.

[The Original BJ]

I think the Academy's anti-animation bias has more to do with the omission of animated films in some of those categories, not that they shouldn't be (or aren't eligible.)

Of course, costume and makeup are out, as well as cinematography. But I'm not so quick to discount some of those others.

In addition to Nightmare's Visual Effects nom, Dinosaur was also a finalist. Plus, BAFTA has a history of recognizing animated features in this category, including Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Toy Story, and Shrek.

Since the American Cinema Editors split their prizes into Comedy and Drama, we've seen animated nominations for Shrek, Monsters, Inc., Finding Nemo, and The Incredibles.

And The Incredibles even scored a nod with the Art Directors Guild.

So I'd say that because those films have scored in those categories with the precursors, it shouldn't be impossible for them to make it in those races at the Oscars, just unlikely, given AMPAS history.

As far as animated performances go, there are plenty that have been buzzed, including Williams in Aladdin, DeGeneres in Finding Nemo, Murphy in Shrek, I'd add Serkis in Two Towers. Of course, this buzz is always accompanied by questions of eligibility and whether or not other actors will nominate such performers. My prediction is that actors will largely (as they have) avoid strictly voice-over performances, but that somewhere down the line, sooner or later, an actor who is very overdue for recognition will give a highly-regarded voice-over performance in a weak category and land a nod.

[Sonic Youth]

Will fellow actors be down with nominating such performances? I don't think so.

I forgot about Nightmare Before Christmas. I wonder if it succeeded with that category because the animation is "realer" than hand-drawn or computer animation is. "Realer" meaning, the objects photographed onscreen are real objects with depth to them and have an application in real life.

[Okri]

The Nightmare Before Christmas was nominated for visual effects.

Do we think it's impossible for voice over performances to get nominated for oscars?

[Sonic Youth]

Now, here's the problem with that, as far as I can see.

Unlike with live action films, animated films can only have nominations in a limited number of categories. Besides Best Animated Feature, The Incredibles was nominated for screenplay and the two sound categories. Even Beauty and the Beast was nominated in only three categories (besides Best Picture): Song, Score and Sound. By it's very nature, an animated film isn't going to benefit from a multitude of nominations a live action film does. No acting noms, no cinematography, no art-set direction, no costumes or make-up, probably no direction, editing or visual effects (although I suppose a case could be made for them, but I don't think it's happened yet.)

A live action film could be nommed for any of these, and that's a big boost. Besides Picture and Foreign Language Film, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon was nominated for EIGHT categories, five of them in categories an animated film couldn't pick up - even as CTHD was shut out in the acting categories. (Life is Beautiful picked up the slack in that department.)

Back to Beauty and the Beast. I said it was nominated for only four categories if you include Best Picture. However, it was nominated for Best Song three times, giving it a total of SIX nominations. Again, multiple nominations helps a picture. And I'm willing to bet that the highly regarded song score was the deciding factor for BATB's Best Picture nom.

[atomicage]

And it's hard to deny that as long as there is an Animated Feature Oscar category, there will never be another animated film nominated in the Best Picture category.

You say it's hard to deny the fact, so I'm going to.

While I do agree that voters will probably be reluctant to give an animated film both a Best Picture slot AND a Best Animated Feature, I can't help but think of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon".

When the movie came out, being one of the most popular of its kind, critics (at least the dozens whose articles I read) raved. Everyone knew that it would win Best Foreign Film that year. And yet, STILL, voters found it necessary to give it a Best Picture slot along with its Best Foreign nod.

Now, perhaps that only happened because voters felt there were not enough qualified movies that year. I don't know; I'm not a voter. But what I'm getting at is, even though a film may win Best Foreign or Best Animated, it does not, as you more or less said, obliterate it's chances of getting a Best Picture nomination.

[Sonic Youth]

There's this conventional wisdom out there that Cars was a box office disappointment even by Pixar's standards, but it's just not so. I remember it had a somewhat soft opening weekend, but it's gone on to make $245 million at the U.S. box office, which is equal to Toy Story 2, and a mere $15 million less than The Incredibles.

I haven't seen the movie, and maybe I place too much faith in Pixar, but if Cars is lesser in quality than the other Pixars I'm sure it's not from a lack of trying.

make films as dumbed-down as possible for the many people who don't have high standards for what animation they will watch, as long as its technically proficient.

Aka, children.

Oh well, what are ya gonna do?

[OscarGuy]

However, as you'll notice, the onslaught of animated features seems to have hit the public wrong, too. The quality went down and so did the box office numbers. Only built-in audiences came to the theater when usually an animated feature brought everyone out even if it could be bad. Audiences have become more discerning and we can thank the Academy for that. This is an indirect side effect of course.

Here's what I mean: The Academy establishes the Animated Film Category. Along with such high box office numbers of Animated Films, this change has spurred a lot of companies to incrase their animation output. This has caused the quality, of course, to go down. Audiences are getting inundated with good and bad animated features and they are turning on ALL of them, not just a few. While Ice Age 2 was a huge success, Cars was hardly the kind of success that Pixar has had in the past. What this will indirectly cause is a desire on the part of film companies to increase QUALITY output for two reasons: 1) to get audiences back into the theater. 2) to get the Academy to take a more serious look at their films.

You may not see the ghettoization as a positive but it's quite clear that positive or negative in the short term, it should provide a more positive effect in the long run.

[rain Bard]

The "small pool" argument against the category is a good one, but as an animation fan I've always been more concerned about ghettoization. If the artform is going to advance in ways other than purely technological, there needs to be an incentive to make animated films that are seen as more than colorful gimmicks made exclusively for juveniles.

Remember when Beauty and the Beast was among the Best Picture nominees? That particular film may or may not be your opinion of an animated film at or near the pinnacle of achievement in the form, but it appealed to a lot of people who had tended to dismiss animation previously. And it's hard to deny that as long as there is an Animated Feature Oscar category, there will never be another animated film nominated in the Best Picture category. There are two related reasons for this: one, if an Oscar-friendly film like Beauty and the Beast were to be made today, many voters would be reluctant to give it a slot in the BP category knowing it was alreay a shoo-in to win the Animated Oscar. Two, there is less incentive in making a great animated film with qualities that get animation snobs interested, since even if you did you still wouldn't get much recognition for it outside of ghettoized animation categories.

As a result, production has spiralled in the other direction: make films as dumbed-down as possible for the many people who don't have high standards for what animation they will watch, as long as its technically proficient. The special appeal of animation has become a kind of curse stunting the growth of the medium's artistry.

[Sonic Youth]

Not a week goes by without Variety reviewing 5 to 10 new documentaries. During major festivals, that number shoots up. I have no idea how many the Academy screens.

In all fairness, the number of eligible animated films is probably equal to or greater than the number of viable Best Actress candidates.

[FilmFan720]

Does anyone know how many documentaries are made every year that are eligible for their own category? How about eligible live action short films. I'm genuinely curious, because this controversy of a shallow pool of contenders is certainly exemplified by the animated film category, I wonder how far off other specialized categories would be.

For short films, the eligible pool is taken out of the top award winners at "Academy Approved Festivals." There are thousands of short films made each year, but the Academy's pool is only about 50 or less. Still, these have been previously screened and selected, so the pool should be of the highest quality.

[criddic3]

after the atrocious Shark Tale scored a place instead of the superior and COMPLETELY nominatable The Polar Express,

I agree with that, but this is less about having quality films to choose from than about making the wrong choice. Nobody said that have to be right. They've made equally bad choices in other categories. That doesn't mean the category is useless.

[Okri]

Does anyone know how many documentaries are made every year that are eligible for their own category? How about eligible live action short films. I'm genuinely curious, because this controversy of a shallow pool of contenders is certainly exemplified by the animated film category, I wonder how far off other specialized categories would be.

[Damien]

With such a small pool to choose from every single year, there is no incentive to make your animated film a great work for the ages. All you need to do is make it juuuust good enough in order for it to make money, and if an Oscar comes your way that's a side benefit. If there were 350 animated films every year, as there are 350 live action films, then I'd see the sense of it.

Exactly, Sonic!

Here's what I wrote in a Salom.com article about when the 2002 nominees were announced:

"This year there were five nominees for Best Animated Feature. (In its debut last year, the category only sported three contenders). This category should not even exist, as very, very few cartoons are good enough to merit Academy recognition; if something truly remarkable does come along, a Special Oscar can take care of it. And to have a bomb like Treasure Planet as an Oscar nominee frankly diminishes the stature of the Awards. There were 17 films eligible in this category, which means that 29.4% of them were nominated. To put things in perspective, this is the equivalent of the 278 eligible feature films yielding 82 Best Picture nominees. (Swinfan and Sorority Boys would have had a good shot a nominations.)"
==================================
I have nothing particularly against cartoons and if supposed adults want to spend their 10 bucks and 2 hours of their lives wallowing in juvenalia, then God bless 'em. But to my dying day, I will insist that the prestige (such as it is) of the Oscars is hurt every time one of these things is given a statuette.