Mar 9th 2010 1:35PM By: Jacob Hall
Avatar won the Oscar for Best Cinematography last Sunday. It's not unusual for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to award the Best Cinematography Oscar to sweeping big budget epics. It is unusual for the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences to award the Best Cinematography Oscar to a film that was almost entirely created within the confines of a computer using motion capture technology.
There's an image that's been making the online rounds. Depending on who's posting it or tweeting it or linking it, it usually comes with a caption expressing bewilderment, disappointment or snark. I'm linking you to a snarky one because I'm that kind of guy.
What happened? Were Academy voters entirely aware of what they were voting for here? Did voters make the conscious decision to embrace the motion capture and 3D "revolution?" Or were they simply handing it the trophy because Avatar looked pretty? Both options taste sour in my mental mouth to be perfectly honest.
Before we go any further, let's make sure everyone reading this is on the same page.
Filed under: Discussion Posts


In reading this piece over on io9 called 'The Cities You Can Never Leave', I'm reminded of just how restricting some of our most memorable sci-fi cities actually were. And maybe it says a little something about us that a great majority of the fictional futures we create contain cities where citizens cannot leave for one reason or another (though exiting said city usually means a punishment by death). Why is that? Why are we so obsessed with not being able to leave our home? Are we really that afraid of losing our freedom -- to the point where it's become an underlying theme in more sci-fi films than one can count? What do you think?










