Oscars = officially and without question a total joke.

Anyway Scorcese for Director, Eddie Murphy for Supporting Actor. The rest I dont really mind

Catagories would be titled as such:AintItCool Directors, AintIt Cool Actors, AintItCool Music and so on. Whatchya think Headgeeker?

I officially begin this petition! I got my vote...

If the Academy had a category for "cutest" picture of the year. Little Miss Sunshine wins the Oscar.

With United 93,The Prestige,The departed,and Apocalypto making up the rest of the top 5

and a 8 year old for best supporting actress? whaaaaa?

I actually think CARS is underrated. On a technical level it's absolutely incredible. The animation is way ahead of what anyone else is doing. The atmospheric lighting in some of those scenes, the detailed sound design, the textures and reflections, the crowd scenes, the trademark Pixar attention to detail. I liked it as a story too but it's true that it's one of Pixar's least effective (arguably only better than A BUG'S LIFE). And the weirdness of the world-of-cars premise makes it harder to invest in the characters, somehow.

MONSTER HOUSE was okay, and it stood out from other animated features (if you count it as animation, which I'm not sure you should since motion capture is not done frame by frame, it's more like puppetry). But I think it's hugely flawed. First of all, in trying to improve on what they did in POLAR EXPRESS I think they actually took a step back. Yes, they avoided the creepy soul-less eyes, but to me the giant cartoony heads with realistic mocap bodies were more distracting and bizarre. And just on an artistic level the look of the movie was not as impressive as POLAR EXPRESS. More importantly, this is a movie that should have been done in live action. There is nothing about the story that is improved by it being animated, and there is plenty that is lessened. If it was a live action world with a special effects house it would have been a much better movie. Even though there are good things about it (the chubby friend was a good character) I think it would be a shame if this somehow won.

I think HAPPY FEET is much more effective than the other two and it breaks more artistic ground for animated features. In a year deluged by talking animal movies this is the only one that really caught on big, and I think that's because it doesn't even feel like it's in the same genre. If anything it's closest to live action movies like George Miller's other animal movie, BABE: PIG IN THE CITY. It has the same sort of timeless feel, universal themes and dark undertones. It's also an epic - I don't know how anyone could see it and not be impressed by those early scenes with the thousands of male penguins protecting their eggs in the storm, it was like something out of Lord of the Rings. Plus, most of the movie takes place in locations surrounded by hundreds of penguins. A movie made up mostly of crowd scenes - it couldn't be done in any other medium.

Also, the design and movements of the characters is more realistic than most anyone has done in a computer animated feature so far. That's not usually what I would look for, but for this story it was perfect.

Of course, to enjoy the movie you have to accept the musical aspect and the fact that Robin Williams plays two characters. But the singing is completely organic to the story and at least one of the Williams characters is so well animated that he becomes lovable.

Plus, any harmless penguin movie that drives Massawyrm, Sean Hannity and Michael Medved all into moronic, frothing rages of ridiculousness deserves some extra points.

So here's a prediction. While some of the artsy-fartsy film lovers around here may be happy that the Academy picked these films -- as one person here gleefully noted the Academy is now paying more attention to "art films" over larger crowd pleasers -- here's the flip side to that. With no TITANIC or specific film that people rallied around and that they really, really liked to drive the Oscars (or at least be seeded in amongst the other films), this will be one of the LOWEST rated Oscars ever.

Look at this talk back as a good example. Hell, this is a site for film GEEKS and even HERE you have a ton of people saying "Never saw it. Never wanted to. No interest in that one at all." So if its like that here, with those already pre-disposed to seeing a ton of films each year, how do you think average America is reacting these these head-scratching choices?

Sheesh, even if UNITED 93 was nominated for Best Picture (which note to the Academy, it SHOULD have been, you mentally challenged and unpatriotic twats!) THAT could have helped drive ratings by having people rally behind it emotionally. Certainly the media would have absolutely, positively LOVED to play up the whole "Will ultra Liberal Hollywood reward UNITED 93?" angle to get people's juices going and get them interested in the Oscar telecast. But on the flip side, do you actually think the average person out there is actually saying "Oh my God! I hope LMS beats the QUEEN for Best Picture!"

RECORD LOW RATINGS - MARK MY WORDS!

It could happen. I would let her.

To me, animation is the art of creating acting out of drawings, or frame by frame movements of a puppet, or these days a digital puppet. Once it gets into live action fed through a computer it turns into something different in my opinion, a hybrid artfrom. That's all I'm saying.

As for it being like rotoscoping, I agree. But rotoscoping is also a different beast from creating animation out of whole cloth. Even Ralph Bakshi would agree.

Of course, the Academy disagrees about motion capture, having nominated both Polar Express and Monster House. I'm not being judgmental. You wouldn't believe how many times I've defended Polar Express from my animation nerd friends (most of whom haven't even seen it).

Sounds like you liked Monster House more than I did, though. What do you think, do the cartoon heads look good on motion captured bodies?

iamnicksaicnsn - it was a great scene. Some people didn't understand why they would stop fighting. But just think after nearly two decades of not seeing a baby and then to all of a sudden see one with your very own eyes, in the heat of battle...

They're talking about the 4th one now.

Bay agrees as long as he never has to see Tome cruise's face in another spielberg film again

what is this pans labrynth i keep hearing about anyway?

What are any of these films? I'm so out of touch

HARRY, FIND A RESTROOM NOW OR YOU WILL BE WEARING IT!!!

To people suggesting Snakes on Train as a sequel to the great SoaP: It's already been made as a direct to DVD movie that was released before SoaP even made it to theaters. It even included a snake eating the entire train.

To people saying that Children of Men was robbed for director or best picture: Do several things for me. Go read the source material and realized how much they missed the boat in the adaptation. Ponder for a moment the absurdity of expelling all immigrants in a world where there aren't enough people to keep things running. That's right, just like in the book, you'd want to have those people coming into your country to help do things. The book dealt with immigration, too; it just did it by talking about the treatment of immigrants rather than making illogical conclusions. Watch the movie again while pretending it wasn't directed by Cuaron (who is much better than that movie) and then go punch yourself in the neck for being such a pompous jerk.

For the record, I liked Children of Men. I just don't think it deserved awards for acting, directing, writing or best picture.

Rap song, rap song, We do our raps and then the crowd goes wild! And then it's time for the "after" party, And we hang out and do lots of sex with girls! Yo.

Please let this be the end of the horror that is the "I just got off the phone" jokes.

(Sorry Ghoul)

Anchorite is so money.

That whole Backback Mountain homophobic comment thing kinda turned me on. That doesn't make me some kind of fag?

Just kidding Fount, we all know you accidently fell on the phone.

Everyone else, apologies for the intrusion. I don't give a fuck about the Oscars. Carry on.

Anyway, the definition is getting blurry no matter what you think of motion capture, considering how the Weinsteins submitted Arthur and the Invisibles thinking it was an animated feature, but it was disqualified for having too much live action. Where do you draw the line? In the Academy definition I wonder if the Garfield movies count, since they have animation onscreen the whole time?

Jerry on Cartoon Brew is actually very open (sometimes too much so) but Amid is the one that is ridiculously conservative. Those people who can't even acknowledge The Simpsons because of animation theory are just ridiculous. When you see someone trying to argue with a straight face that The Simpsons would work in live action you have to wonder if they even really believe what they're saying or if they're just so stuck on this theory they can't let go.

However, I do think all 3 nominees are decent movies, with Happy Feet deserving it the most. Although I think Monster House is the weakest and the least animated of the three, I think all three do break ground for animation, not following the usual formulas. No, they're not as good as Spirited Away, but you don't get a movie as good as The Godfather in the best picture category every year either.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion, I appreciate it.

I'm sure it matters to corporate marketing strategies and DVD sales and the financing of future copycat films that'll be based on Academy Award-winning films, but otherwise these awards mean nothing.

I'll make my own list of Cobbio Awards and completely ignore the Academy once again.

1) Sweet newborn Jesus was this a slim year for animated features. I'm going to have to default to Cars on this one, and yes I know that it's not Pixar's best, but it sure beats the other two. Although my niece did really like Monster House (and she's pretty much a Miyazaki groupie for chrissakes), it's nowhere near as pretty as Cars, which must count for something. And Happy Feet was cute, but let's not start giving out awards just for having penguins in a movie. That's just lame.

2) I know there's a lot of hate for Depp Man's Chest on the internets in general, but bear in mind that it's up for technical awards. You know, the ones that Star Wars always used to sweep? And Star Wars had worse overall acting and writing merit than the Pirates movies, so there you are. They promised a squid-faced undead pirate, and they delivered, I'd say.

3) I haven't seen The Departed, so I'll ask this: does Scorcese get the shaft yet again, or does he finally get the little statue? Considering that his DeNiro 2.0 (DiCaprio) was nominated for another film, I'm betting on the former option here.

4) No Best Supporting Actor nom for John C. Reilly as Cal Naughton Jr.? C'mon, dudes ;)

5) I need to see more movies. WAY more :(

Are you twelve?! So the general public wasn't aware of how beautiful a film could look until the 21st century huh? What about the 100 years of cinema before that? And sorry to point this out, but The Two Towers and The Return of the King don't even have great cinematography. Merely very good.

And your point about cinematography is 100% wrong. The mainstream isn't discussing cinematography any more now than ever. Sorry, but 3 mediocre looking films didn't change that.