And the Nominees for Best Whatever Are...

The Best Animated Film category has been around for seven years. That's about 70 years too late, as far as I'm concerned.

What makes a good animated film? Well, according to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Science (what a BS name), a good, award-worthy animated film is not one that has "a frame-by-frame technique," but one where "movement and characters' performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique." I'm glad they finally cleared that up. Apparently, to them, this would eliminate films that employ motion capture from the Best Animated Film category. Where was this rule last year when that piece of crap Happy Feet won?

And now they have to figure out what to do with Beowulf. I'm actually interested in seeing this. It looks far better than Polar Express and Final Fantasy. All of the humans, and probably even Grendel and some of the horses, use motion capture to move them around. But I doubt they use motion capture for all of those explosions, sea monsters, dragons, and Angelina Jolie's tail. What if Beowulf turns out to be a great film? How will it be recognized? What about Renaissance, a movie that deserves something for its style if not for its story?

I guess you could argue that all of those explosions, sea monsters, dragons, and Angelina Jolie's tail aren't considered animation. They would fit into the Best Visual Effects category. But they're animated! Models were built and moved around! Transformers is full of visual effects that include character animation. Same with Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean, and Spider-Man. Most of the characters are live actors, but the truth is, all of those nice visual effects were animated. My question now is, where do we draw the line between animation and visual effects? What separates the two? Amount of screen time given to animated characters? How much of the story relies on animated characters?

If they eliminate mo-cap from the Best Animated Film category, then they might as well eliminate rotoscoped films from that category as well. That means that Waking Life, A Scanner Darkly, and most of Ralph Bakshi's films would not be eligible for the award. Not that they deserve anything (well, Bakshi deserves a few), but are they really supposed to be ignored when movies like Happy Feet and Jimmy Neutron are getting attention?

And now they (Reuters) say that Ratatouille will be submitted into the Best Picture category, not the Best Animated Film category. I don't blame Disney for doing this. Cars was wonderful, but it still lost to dancing penguins. Brad Bird is fantastic. Just listen to any of his DVD commentaries and you can tell this is someone who takes his job very seriously. His film deserves more than just a filler-category award. Does the fact that these rats are animated and not real mean that the story is any worse than a live-action film's story?

So what is the Academy supposed to do with animated and non-animated "frame by frame" films? How about include them in the regular categories like Best Picture? And if they don't want to do that, then forget about it. They waited too long to give animated films the recognition they deserve, and now these old farts are behind the times and way in over their heads trying to figure out what "animation" is. Forget about the Best Animated Film category, don't include them in the Best Picture category, and sneak one into the Best Screenplay or Best Music category every now and then. Films like Ratatouille, The Simpsons Movie, Transformers, Star Wars, and even Happy Feet make a fortune long before anyone thinks about the Oscar race. These films will continue to make millions and billions world-wide with or without eventually winning a pretty statue. It's the new techniques, new approaches, innovations, and original stories that keep animation alive, not the red carpet.

Jason