11–20 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why should motion capture be banned from those awards?
I don't know, but Andy Serkis was robbed of a Best Supporting Actor nomination because Gollum was regarded as "just a CG Character".
I would've given him the best voice acting award though.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know, but Andy Serkis was robbed of a Best Supporting Actor nomination because Gollum was regarded as "just a CG Character".
Half of Andy Serkis' job portraying Gollum was done by animators, even though Serkis provided the basic facial expressions. I would've given him the best voice acting award though.
I would be surprised if it weren't already de facto banned, like how motion capture performances are essentially banned from Best Actor/Actress awards
Why should motion capture be banned from those awards?
The rationale (which, again, I'm not arguing for or against) is that mocap performances are not strictly speaking totally the actors, because mocap has to be cleaned and can be (and very often is) edited and tweaked after the fact by animators. Not to mention there are often required liberties taken because a model cannot line up one to one with an actor anatomically.
In a sense, mocap performances are done by a team of animators where one animator puppeted a model in real time.
Obviously just performative signalling that doesn't really do much. You can't definitively tell if AI was used, so the rule can never realistically be enforced. Then again, the Oscars are surely almost entirely vibes based anyway. So it's hardly some internally consistent system of merit in the first place.
Just because something is hard or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean you don't state that it is not allowed and that there are consequences for being caught. That's a common fallacy that overly engineering-minded people fall into.
We're humans. We care about things. There is nothing strange about me asking you not to do something that I can't stop you from doing.
Obvious decision for any institution with at least a modicum of artistic self-respect.
- emotional connection
- aesthetics
- zeitgeist
- lived experience
- artist journey
You're free to fall in love with your sexbot, but it's still just jerking off.
Obviously just performative signalling that doesn't really do much. You can't definitively tell if AI was used, so the rule can never realistically be enforced. Then again, the Oscars are surely almost entirely vibes based anyway. So it's hardly some internally consistent system of merit in the first place.
You can't definitively tell if athletes are doping, or students are cheating, it should then be allowed.
Given the latest court ruling in March that AI works can't be copyrighted, this makes a lot of sense. The movie itself can't be copyrighted if it uses AI (although there is still some unresolved issues around how much AI).
Obviously just performative signalling that doesn't really do much. You can't definitively tell if AI was used, so the rule can never realistically be enforced. Then again, the Oscars are surely almost entirely vibes based anyway. So it's hardly some internally consistent system of merit in the first place.
I wish we could stop the slide of the term "performative" into meaninglessness. Just because something is hard or even impossible to enforce, doesn't mean you don't state that it is not allowed and that there are consequences for being caught. That's a common fallacy that overly engineering-minded people fall into. We're humans. We care about things. There is nothing strange about me asking you not to do something th…
Moreover, why stop here? There are many great rules that are impossible to enforce. Why not a rule that the author isn't allowed to have any racist thoughts when writing the material?
We can't read minds, but it sure is a nice thing to care about, don't you think?