Unofficial Academy Awards Discussion Board

Since I have no expectation of seeing Hitchcock or More and Longer Hobbits prior to the Oscars, this is as educated as I'm going to be in this category by showtime. So, let me ask:

Might they really give the make-up prize to the team who saw to it that, between 1815 and 1832, Hugh Jackman looked like he aged half an hour? Seriously: when he sang "I am old...", did anyone else think, Yeah, you must be all of 45?

Granted, there were other make-up/hair effects in Les Miz, but, if you're going that direction, the omitted Lincoln was a considerably more impressive whisker-fest. As dws suggests below, this category has a long history of rigging the results by leaving out potential winners -- Alice in Wonderland two years ago; back in the 90s, Interview with the Vampire (where they compounded the insult by citing the similar but critically lambasted Mary Shelley's Frankenstein -- as if to say, yep, this is fixed, and we don't care who knows it).

I have no excitement about seeing Middle Earth's denizens win yet another make-up prize (even in '03 I was rooting for the then-fresher Pirates of the Caribbean). But it seems that would be the winner on merit, and only best picture centifugal force could pull it away.

I've got some categories I'm planning to start threads for.

flipp525 wrote:Let's get more of these One-by-One threads going! I think there are multiple categories where there's still plenty to discuss.

Yep! Anyone who wants to should start one!

Let's get more of these One-by-One threads going! I think there are multiple categories where there's still plenty to discuss.

The Original BJ wrote:

MovieWes wrote:Actually, the orcs have nothing to do with the nomination for The Hobbit because they weren't makeup effects at all. Most of the creatures this time around were CGI mo-cap effects, and therefore had more to do with the visual effects nomination than the makeup nomination.

Then I stand corrected.

But the dumb trolls were done with makeup.

MovieWes wrote:Actually, the orcs have nothing to do with the nomination for The Hobbit because they weren't makeup effects at all. Most of the creatures this time around were CGI mo-cap effects, and therefore had more to do with the visual effects nomination than the makeup nomination.

Then I stand corrected.

Actually, the orcs have nothing to do with the nomination for The Hobbit because they weren't makeup effects at all. Most of the creatures this time around were CGI mo-cap effects, and therefore had more to do with the visual effects nomination than the makeup nomination. The makeup in this picture were the dwarves, hobbits, Gandalf, Radagast, Saruman, and the elves. If it were just the hobbit, wizard, and elf effects that were on display here, I'd say that this would be a been-there/done-that nomination. But the dwarf effects were not redundant in the sense that they gave us 13 Gimlis. Each of the 13 dwarves were individuals with different looks. They even did the impossible by creating handsome dwarves such as Thorin, Kili, and Fili without making it feel unnatural to the race.

Lincoln's omission indeed seems odd, but this has always been an eccentric branch at times. Hitchcock can be discounted immediately so it's Les Mis vs. The Hobbit and I think Les Mis will edge it. The grime, the beards, the (not entirely successful) efforts to de-glam Anne Hathaway... I think the best picture contender wins here in a tight match.

According to the makeup artists they did not do an exact replica of Lincoln, on Day-Lewis, they molded whiskers to his face and let his posture "convey" Lincoln, but they had literally hundreds of other actors and almost as many extras to make up as well.

One reason why Lincoln's omission is so strange to me is that I think Meryl Streep looks more like Margaret Thatcher then Daniel Day Lewis looks like Abraham Lincoln.

Haven't seen Hitchcock or Les Miserables, but Lincoln's omission is so strange to me.

flipp525 wrote:There's still no way in hell I'm going near The Hobbit with a ten foot pole.

Can't blame you, really. I actually sat through it twice. Once in the 3D, High Frame Rate, and once in regular 2D. (2D was the better experience by far, although I still wouldn't describe it as successful.) I never would've sat through it twice on my own, but sometimes the duty of friendship calls.

I know that it would never be nominated because it's too subtle and simply not flashy enough for this branch, but I found the makeup in Amour quite effective. There was a very gradual reduction in color in Emmanuelle Riva's face. She starts out very pink and healthy looking and by the end of the film, her face is pallid, almost yellow and grey. It jumped out at me while I was watching and I found that it added quite a startling touch to her already superb performance.

There's still no way in hell I'm going near The Hobbit with a ten foot pole.

OscarGuy wrote:The orcs have nothing to do with this nomination and what the nomination is for is barely in the original trilogy.

I don't see how anyone could strongly argue that all that orc makeup had NOTHING to do with the Best Makeup nomination for this movie. It's a bit like saying the tiger had nothing to do with Life of Pi's visual effects nomination -- no, it wasn't the ONLY achievement on display, but it's by far the most eye-catching element of it.

And you're right, the makeup in The Hobbit isn't literally the same as in the first trilogy...but it's certainly the same types of creations voters have rewarded in the past, and there may be some people who'd feel a sense of deja vu about rewarding orcs (and dwarves) again. I don't think this group will number enough people to cost it the prize here, but you never know.

And I wasn't using the term creature effects dismissively -- I'd include all the work on the dwarves in the creature effects category -- and I'd vote for it out of this lineup.

OK, OK, I checked the nominees out on IMDd. One of the co-nominees for makeup for The Hobbit won only once for Return of the King, another only once for Narnia. The third not at all, they are among the Peter Jackson tribe that has been over-awarded. On the other hand, neither of the gals nominated for Les Miz has previously won despite major credits going back a couple of decades.

Hitchcock has three nominees for hair and makeup. Surely all three didn't work on Anthony Hopkins alone.

I would still vote for Les Miz, but really, who knows what who did in this category. The list of credits for hair and makeup now outdoes every other category on a film. Lincoln has fifty-four credits in this category. It's ridiculous. Maybe it should go back to being a category in which only occasional special awards are given.