MovieChat Forums > Avengers: Infinity War (2018) Discussion > Thanos should have gotten an Oscar nod.....

Thanos should have gotten an Oscar nod...

posted 5 years ago by [deleted]
9 replies | jump to latest

Click-bait title... sort of.

Over on the the Black Panther board, a side discussion on Oscar nods mentioned Josh Brolin being overlooked for Thanos.

I'm not sure I'd consider the performance Oscar-worthy, but I remembered being impressed with Thanos/Brolin, particularly the scene where Thanos sadly looks at Gamora before tossing her off the cliff. The pain in his eyes was palpable...

... and then I remembered I was looking a damn cartoon. Sure, rendered by digital artists using the best computing available, but, it was still a cartoon.

It got me to thinking: Should actors be nominated for their performance, independent of what their CGI-avatar, or should the PERFORMANCE be nominated, acknowledging that the contribution of the animators is as least as important to the performance as the actor?

Any thoughts?

[–] TexasJack (12515) 5 years ago

I never forgot that I was looking at a cartoon. Scenes like the one you described just make me angry that they decided to use CGI, because I know that Brolin is an excellent actor and it would have been nice to see him act.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

Some thoughts...

It would have been very difficult to emote physically under layers of latex and paint. Using animation and mo-cap to convey the nuances of emotion was probably much easier.

Aside from Tim Burton's Planet of the Apes way back when, I can't think of recent examples where big tentpole film makers chose practical effects over CGI.

And as fine an actor as he is, Brolin was probably too glad to have let the animators handle it rather than sit in a makeup chair for several hours a day, day after day.

[–] NorrinRad (5047) 5 years ago

Some consideration should be given to the CGI utilized in this film are nothing more than digital makeup in the majority of the scenes, as Josh Brolin had mo-cap equipment on and all of the physical actions are definitely his. Additionally and most importantly, all of the facial actions, emotions and reactions are all Josh Brolin.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

John Hurt was Oscar nominated for The Elephant Man. He had to act under layers of latex and makeup on real sets. At the time there was no award for Best Makeup... an oversight that was changed because of this movie. It was an implicit acknowledgement that the character was as much a creation of the actor as the makeup team.

By contract, Josh Brolin acted in a unitard with mo-cap markers in front a green screen. His facial expressions were probably captured in several days and then re-used as appropriately by the animators in post-productions. So, for the most part, his contribution was mostly the dialogue and standing in on set for the other actors to work off of.

So should such an actor get a Best Actor nod... or just Best Voice Acting award? John Hurt was acting in every way... Brolin's Thanos required the input of animators. I'd almost argue their contribution was more important than his.

Think about Vin Diesel as Groot, or Johnny Depp as Rango. Neither of those roles required much physical input... it was mostly about the voice.

So at what point does a CGI creation merit consideration for the actor 'acting' versus just doing effective voice work?

Not an easy answer. Just as they had to come up with a new award category as a result of The Elephant Man, I think we now need a new award category acknowledging CGI/human performances as something unique.

[–] NorrinRad (5047) 5 years ago

Voice acting without physicality shouldn't be a situation where awards and recognition should be denied. If the role of the character is that of; let's say someone who is totally paralyzed why should that person be prohibited from any type of awards recognition?

James Earl Jones' voicework for Darth Vader.
Peter Mayhew as Chewbacca.
Kenny Baker R2D2
Anthony Daniels C3PO
Doug Jones as the Silver Surfer (Larry Fishburne did the voice work)

Those are just samples of voicework where someone else may perform the physicality and that the duo create a memorable experience on film. Not saying they all should have been considered for Oscars. I am agreeing that their performances should be recognized and some more than others. It is still very much acting.

[–] FilmBuff (6703) 5 years ago

I don't know very much about CGI, or how Brolin was transformed into Thanos, but my understanding is that we see his face, and his acting, with layers added atop via CGI. A cartoon would be a series of drawings of Thanos, which is quite a bit different. What we see Thanos say and do is 100% Brolin.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

I'm being facetious when I use the word cartoon. Mo-cap dots are used to 'paint' the CGI in over his face. His expressions and motions are used as reference points for the animators.

All the voicework is Brolin's. However, the physical depiction is a combination of Brolin and CGI. So, it's tough to say the character only succeeds because of Brolin, or only because of the animators. Which is why I think that they need to modify the definition of best actor, or create a new category of award... call it Best Character Realization... that recognizes the contributions of both to create a truly memorable character.

[–] NorrinRad (5047) 5 years ago

By contrast, Josh Brolin acted in a unitard with mo-cap markers in front a green screen. His facial expressions were probably captured in several days and then re-used as appropriately by the animators in post-productions. So, for the most part, his contribu tion was mostly the dialogue and standing in on set for the other actors to work off of.

All of Josh's performance were not done by himself and some were indeed acted against other actors. They didn't just take canned footage of Josh and tweak his reactions via CGI.

The person who SHOULD have gotten a best actor via performance motion capture is Andy Serkis and his portrayal as Caesar:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/oscars/11217293/Does-Andy-Serkiss-motion-capture-acting-deserve-an-Oscar.html

Nonetheless I'm just quibbling with your slightly inaccurate portrayal of Thanos/Brolin's performance results and reference points. It was all Brolin and not just cut and pasted CGI renditioned scenes. Thanos the character truly only succeeded because of Brolin.

[–] [deleted] 5 years ago

"The person who SHOULD have gotten a best actor via performance motion capture is Andy Serkis and his portrayal as Caesar:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/oscars/11217293/Does-Andy-Serkiss-motion-capture-acting-deserve-an-Oscar.html "

Good article! It touches on all the same points that I mentioned. I really do believe that at some point, some sort of new category will have to be created, although the field will be relatively small... for now.

(BTW, Serkis' King Kong will always hold a soft spot for me. Between his performance and the CGI team, his Kong really alternated between terrifying and pitiful. The scene where he tries to 'save' Anne Darrow in the cave and the final scene where he sadly gazes on her one last time before he slips away off the edge of the Empire State Building... man, I had a big lump in my throat.)

Watch things get even more complicated when dead actors are 'revived' via digital technology. It's already been done in a limited way in movies. (I always thought Oliver Reed's last performance in Gladiator was a standout. His final monologue where he waxes on about the glory that comes to victorious gladiators was gripping. Some of his scenes were done digitally since he died during filming.)

Can a purely CGI character and/or the actor behind it be nominated if the database for the actor comes from his past performances? I offer only food for thought... no answers.