| World of KJ http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/ |
|
| okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=49473 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | snack [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:03 am ] |
| Post subject: | okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
try your best kiddos. |
|
| Author: | Loyal [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:06 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
Slumdog almost won both. That's all I got. I stand firm that Anna Paquin has no place voting in Sound Mixing. Leave it to the techs to vote for the techs. |
|
| Author: | roo [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:07 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
snackosaurus wrote: try your best kiddos. Wall-E and TDK split the vote? |
|
| Author: | snack [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:08 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
tru info mag. |
|
| Author: | MikeQ. [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:41 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
Well, Sound Editing usually goes to blockbusters/loud action-y films, because all those unique action sounds need to be manifested in some way, and the Academy likes that. So, The Dark Knight winning for Sound Editing made complete sense, from that perspective. Wall-E is perhaps not the most action-like Pixar film? I think the only Pixar film to win Best Sound Editing at the Oscars is The Incredibles, and that's clearly an animated action movie. Blockbusters also show up in the Sound Mixing category, but it seems to be generally more open to Best Picture contenders and more subtle stuff. So, it's not hard to see, in retrospect, why Slumdog picked up this award when the Academy loved it and practically gave it a sweep (minus the Sound Editing, which favours blockbusters). That's my explanation, at least. Peace, Mike |
|
| Author: | Jonathan [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
The slurping sound when Jamal rose out of the shit pit WAS pretty impressive. |
|
| Author: | Levy [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 4:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
Slumdog Millionaire stood on the list, that's all you need to know. If they really like a movie they give it everything they got... |
|
| Author: | Christian [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 2:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
MikeQ. wrote: Well, Sound Editing usually goes to blockbusters/loud action-y films, because all those unique action sounds need to be manifested in some way, and the Academy likes that. So, The Dark Knight winning for Sound Editing made complete sense, from that perspective. Wall-E is perhaps not the most action-like Pixar film? I think the only Pixar film to win Best Sound Editing at the Oscars is The Incredibles, and that's clearly an animated action movie. Blockbusters also show up in the Sound Mixing category, but it seems to be generally more open to Best Picture contenders and more subtle stuff. So, it's not hard to see, in retrospect, why Slumdog picked up this award when the Academy loved it and practically gave it a sweep (minus the Sound Editing, which favours blockbusters). That's my explanation, at least. Peace, Mike Spot-on. Sound Editing is more towards CREATION of sound, whether real or made-up (like that clip they used for Apocalypto - the guys walking on muddy plants, the sound was actually from guys mashing up cabbage bits). Sound Mixing is the MIXING and INTEGRATION of all these sounds, including dialogue, score, music cues, etc. That's why musicals do well in Sound Mixing. |
|
| Author: | Alex Y. [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
Iron Man was nominated in Sound Editing but not Mixing Benjamin Button was nominated in Sound Mixing but not Editing So Iron Man voters in Sound Editing were also anti-The Dark Knight so switched their vote to Slumdog in Sound Mixing. Benjamin Button supporters in Sound Mixing were anti-Slumdog Millionaire so voted against Slumdog in Sound Editing. |
|
| Author: | torrino [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
I sort of think this is something that 90% of voters do not understand concretely. If you're Woody Allen, are you going to dwell on the distinction between sound mixing and sound editing? And even if you do, you probably just assume that good sound mixing and good sound editing are..."loud" and "complex." Only the people who deal with sound mixing and editing truly understand it. Or people who've played around with Cool Edit Pro or Audacity or stuff like that. |
|
| Author: | Loyal [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
That's why I said it shouldn't be a voter wide category. You can look at a film and have a general idea of great cinematography or even a misguided one on Editing (MOST FRANTIC WINS!!!). But sound mixing and editing? That's when voters get involved in the numbers game. |
|
| Author: | Christian [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
It also doesn't help now that ever since they took out the bake off and expanded the Sound Editing nominees to five, four of those nominees also show up for Sound Mixing. |
|
| Author: | torrino [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
Clint Eastwood must grunt Gran Torino style when looking at those categories. I wouldn't be surprised if he has requested a second ballot, after jamming his pencil through the first one. |
|
| Author: | Dr. Lecter [ Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:59 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: okay time to attempt explanaing that sound award |
Yeah...I think this is really a weird one to have everyone vote on. Does Dakota Fanning really know the difference? |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|