Andy Ross | "And … animation!"

So, the most hyped Oscar category this year (like the skeleton sled in the Olympics) was the newly-added Best Animated Feature. This would be the first year meeting the required eight full-length theater released animated films. Yet, only three get nominated.

Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius
Shrek
Monsters, Inc.

This says a lot about how the Academy views the role of the award. Why didn't Waking Life and Final Fantasy get nominations? Is it because animation is supposed to be a children's medium?

It's also interesting that Disney, which has so long held a monopoly on animated features, didn't get the nod for Atlantis. People may think that Monsters, Inc. is a Disney film, but it is almost entirely Pixar, a company partnered with Disney by an ever-more-tenuous thread. Even the Oscars, who gave Beauty and the Beast a Best Picture nomination and have filled the Best Song category with Disney for years, seem to agree that Disney is resting on its laurels/partners.

Finally, let's get this conversation really moving. After much thought and time away from it, I'm willing to say that Shrek was one of the worst movies of the year. The computer animation was laughable compared to its competition (and here I admit that Jimmy Neutron is no competition for anyone). The character design and movement was closer to that of cheap Mexican marionettes that a multimillion dollar film. Worse, Shrek was just a series of low blows at Disney — far too easy of prey — and bathroom humor. I'm sorry, but just because poop jokes can pull in box office, doesn't mean they deserve an Oscar. It's the animated equivalent of Tomcats.

Eric Wittmershaus | "Cartoons are for kids" mentality

I was really sad to not see Metropolis on there. I mean, I know it's a foreign animation film and that the plot is typical post-Hiroshima fare, but the animation in this movie blew me away when I saw it. I mean, the frame was packed with glorious, colorful images that leapt off the screen. The scene where the characters make their first trip into the seedy world of Zone 3 was like a gaudy, Japanimation re-creation of complicated nest-of-evil scenes like the one in the Cantina from Star Wars. Brilliant.

Waking Life, Final Fantasy and Atlantis were all more worthy than Jimmy Neutron, assuming the previews I saw for it are consistent with the rest of the movie. I wonder how long this "cartoons are for kids" mentality will dog this category.

Sean Weitner | Splitting Neutron

On the matter of Metropolis: This is from Greg Dean Schmitz's invaluable Upcomingmovies.com:

Release Date: January 25th, 2002 (14 cities that include Los Angeles, New York, Boston, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., Austin, Seattle, Chicago, Toronto, Vancouver and Honolulu); pushed back two months from November 9th, 2001 (check the official site for additional release information)

So it looks like the Oscar may have the chance to redeem themselves by picking Metropolis next year. Although, is choosing to praise the anime ghetto any more commendable than choosing to praise the animation-as-kid's-movie ghetto?

Speaking of which: We're all at the disadvantage, I think, of not having seen Jimmy Neutron, instead only being familiar with what we've seen in trailers. And while I think we've probably gotten a fair assessment of the quality of the animation from the previews, the category's not Best Animation; it's Best Animated Film. Is it possible that Jimmy Neutron is commendable as a movie that happens to be animated? Rotten Tomatoes gives it a 74 percent, and while those are usually untrustworthy ratings, it at least suggests that critical sentiment favored the film.

But that does bring up the issue of just why we need a Best Animated Film category, as opposed to Best Animation. I guess it's like Best Foreign Film; "Here's the best film made under a mode of production that we're choosing to ghettoize." It's pretty hokey; and doesn't Best Foreign Film celebrate quality of foreignness the same way that Best Animated Film may turn out to simply celebrate qualiy of animation? Or does it indeed look to the best picture that is animated?

And is the Academy drawing an equivalence between animation and kiddiness? A reasonable question, but Waking Life was not without its detractors, and Final Fantasy certainly wasn't an achievement in storytelling, but those are the two basically comprise more "adult" animation. I think we're going to need see some more history be written on this one before we can judge it.

Finally: Shrek as one of the year's worst. My review of it was centered mostly on picking at its many non-trivial flaws, but judging that it had a worthwhile heart beneath it all. But let me tell you, nothing dilutes your opinion of a thing's heart more than seeing it so relentlessly whored. Shrek is a Princess Bride redux, right down to the extremely middling quality of its direction — and it's a pretty long shot as far as Best Adapted Screenplay is concerned, too. (Andy, you're right-on: It's all sophomoric in-jokes.) It certainly doesn't help that PDI (to Dreamworks what Pixar is to Disney) is still struggling mightily with animation. Pixar's stuff looks like cartoons, thought brought to life; PDI's stuff always looks like puppets. I don't know if it's one of the year's worst, but it's certainly not one of the year's best. Are you actually saying it's among the worst movies, Andy, are you are just saying that it's the most overrated?

Andy Ross | Extra-textual

I'm saying that Shrek is one of the worst movies of the year from an extra-textual persepctive — not living up to its potential, overhyped, over-talked about, full of itself. I think it's fair to apply things like that to a movie, in the same way it was fair to compare Phantom Menace to the previous trilogy.

Eric Wittmershaus | Screw that

Jimmy Neutron looked as dumb as Max Keeble's Big Movie based on the previews, and while it may be a fine motion picture, Waking Life (which was itself vastly overhyped) blew it out of the water. I think the "animation is for kids" thing will dog the award for a while, despite the fact that half the Academy probably watches "The Simpsons."

Rasheed Newson | Hold it a Shrek

Was Shrek simple minded? Sure. Was it dripping in goo and heavy handed in its sentiments? Of course. Did my 8-year-old sister and her like-minded friends love it? Whole heartedly. All animated films may not be for children, but most are. That means they needs to be held to a different, and admittedly lower, standard of sophistication.

Sean, you mentioned that Shrek is a replay of Princess Bride. But what is Princess Bride to a child who was born after Andre the Giant died? I think the films in the animation catagory needs to be judged on how they succeed given their intended audience. Shrek did that, and so did Monsters, Inc.. Children could follow the stories, and the art was lush enough to hold their fickle attention. To kids, Shrek was a fresh and appealing show.

So what about animation not directed at children? I think those films have to fight a bias equal to the ones comedies face when competing against dramas for Best Pircture. Animation is primarily for whimsy, comforting fairytales and easy storylines. My apologies to those who want to be more artsy or ambitious. 'Toons are for kids.

Sean Weitner | Monster hearts

I'm not comparing Shrek to Princess Bride to praise it, although there are many things to like in the latter film. But there are also many things to furrow your eyebrows at; has Rob Reiner ever actually directed something well, from a formal sense? Sure, This is Spinal Tap is well-directed, and mockumentary needs smart direction as much or more than anything other kind of film narrative, but his camera, his editing ... it just never seems natural. I revisited Princess Bride after a long absense and was shocked by it.

There's no doubting that Shrek and Monsters, Inc. are children's movies, and that they're that kind of chlidren's movies that adults can find pleasure in. But how different their hearts are! Pixar's films have always been rooted in a deep, non-condescending understanding of children; Shrek comes from a deep, condescending understanding of how to manipulate children. At the time, I was able to view Shrek's sarcastic trappings as a filigree atop a somewhat noble story, but Monsters, has such a real nobility that, set beside it, Shrek seems deeply crass and without any comprehension of wonderment or people. You can't really posit an equivalence between them greater than "computer animated, aimed at children."

Well, except for "intended to sell merchandise," but we'll let that slide.

Andy Ross | The "for kids" things

Part of the reason that animation is dogged by the "for kids" tag is Disney's saving the dying artform. Back when they made The Little Mermaid, feature-length animation was on its last legs financially. When you kickstart something the way Disney did, of course you're going to send it down one direction. But, if Disney hadn't come along, what would have? Anime? If so, we might have seen eight feature-length animated films this year about tentacle rape.

To Rasheed's point: The Oscars aren't as much about the audience as they are about the industry (and to some extent, critics). So, your sister and her friends enjoying Shrek puts it in good standing for a People's Choice Award, but not an Oscar.

Denying the differences between Shrek and Monsters, Inc. by lumping them together does all children a disservice. As Sean said, there is something noble in Monsters, Inc. and nothing noble in Shrek. It is our jobs as adults to help children recognize that.

Sean Weitner | Medium-sized horses

Well, hang on. I'm not sure how fair it is to say that the Oscars operate on a different plane that a People's Choice Award. And I'm not saying that in a "Movie execs are people, too," sense, except I guess that I am. If you see a really good movie, the only person that you can be sure has taste is the director; the writer probably has taste, if it's really good; the producer is also likely to have taste, as really good movies require being shepherded by someone with a knowing hand. All those other people, from the actors to the technicians? There's no accounting for their taste. The fact that Shrek got a screenplay nomination seems to underscore that, and the professionals that make up the Academy are as likely to be unduly influenced by their kids' obsessions as anyone else. We'd all like the Oscars to mean something more than a glorified (or snobbified) People's Choice Awards, but let's not kid ourselves.

Andy Ross | The difference

I'm not saying that the Oscars are on a different astral plane than the People's Choice Awards; just that, unlike those, the Oscars have to pay a little attention to critics. Anyway, I don't think it was kids who made such a box-office impression, but pre-teens, who had become Mike Myers fans from his Fat Bastard days. When I go to Toys 'R' Us, I hear a quarter of the number of screams for Shrek toys as I do for Monsters, Inc. ones. The Oscars probably realize that.

I'm not sure, but this Shrek thing might be a moot point. There are only two ways it could beat Monsters, Inc.. The Academy could try to give Disney the finger, which is a little unlikely. Or, the world could be coming to an end, which is slightly more likely considering our President.

Rasheed Newson | Boo critics

There are critics among the Academy voters, but luckily they alone don't dictate who the Oscar goes to. Critics, present company excluded, are usually snobs. Too often, they get their kicks out of raving about obscure films — dark, dense joyless flicks. Too often, they reject the mainstream out of habit.

Shrek was a joy. Kids loved it and dragged their parents to it. It made lots of loot. It's not the end of the world. It's popular opinion.

And popular opinion never judges art or artists purely on their merits and talents (as critics would have us do). Is anyone going to deny that Nicole Kidman got a nomination this year, in part, because of her longstanding performance as Tom Cruise's wife and recent turn as jilted but strong ex? Could it be that Denzel is getting a nomination to make amends for his past performances and the Academy's history of overlooking black actors? Of course it could be. And I'll say should be. Context matters — whether it is heady information about how much actors study and transform their bodies for a part or lightweight things like the opinions of 8-year-old girls and mass appeal.

Andy Stilp | Boo critics?

On a separate animation note, I consider the Boo character of Monsters, Inc. to be one of the single cutest and most touching kids Disney or Pixar has put forth yet. Swear to God, she was gigglicious. Didn't exactly elevate it to Academy Award-worthy levels, but it made Monsters, Inc. altogether more palatable and perhaps did good to strengthen both the animation field and the argument for an animation field given the current crop of works out there.

Sean Weitner | Woulda, coulda, shoulda

Andy S. (and everyone else), you should reacquaint yourself with Andy R.'s review of Monsters, Inc.. The second-to-last graf goes into cerebral, incisive detail about the wonder that is Boo.

Rasheed says: "Could it be that Denzel is getting a nomination to make amends for his past performances and the Academy's history of overlooking black actors? Of course it could be. And I'll say should be. Context matters." Well, in this particular case, Washington has been nominated for four Oscars in the past, and won once, so I'm not sure that Oscar has anything to make up to him. And, in fact, if the contextual issue is nominating black actors, then what would make the most sense would be to nominate someone besides Denzel, right? We get that this year with Will Smith's deserving incarnation of Ali and, sure enough, people are commenting on how historical it is for two black actors to be nominated in the same year. Watching the nominations on E! this morning (hey, they're the only network that broadcast it), the point was made, many times, about how many years it's been since a black actor won Best Actor, and how shameful that was. But the Academy has so many other bugaboos to get over in terms of nominating performances that race is scarcely one of them; given how frequently they fail to nominate great performances and instead recognize perfunctory ones in semi-popular movies, they're lucky to find five performances from an actor of any race in each category in some years.

But the greater, better question: Should context matter? Are the ideal awards divorced from the fluctuations of opinion and the weight of history?

Andy Ross | If context matters

If context matters, then Shrek is a petty film, a sniveling backlash against past allies. If context matters, then Shrek is a sad shadow of the recent animated films of Pixar and Warner Bros.' The Iron Giant. If context matters, then Shrek is a byproduct of an economic boom, a boom that put more money into the hands of the young than had gone to their Baby Boomer parents, a boom that led to the popularity of TRL and grade schoolers with phones.

At the start of this conversation I just pitied Shrek. Now, I'm starting to hate it.