‘Apollo 10 ½’ Rejected as Animation by Oscar Committee because it's rotoscoped!?

Some of you may know that I’ve worked on Apollo 10 1/2, so this news kind of really upset me too :angry:

They rejected it because:

…does not feel that the techniques meet the definition of animation in the category rules” due to the “extensive use” of live-action footage.

And Cinderella from Disney (1950) did!? :smiley:
It used at least as much rotoscope as Apollo did.

Edit on 14-11-2022:
It’s animation again! :smiley:


1 Like

I think that the true reason is that it was made using Blender, so that would be too much of a scandal! :laughing:


Uh…tough one!

Hope the appeal meets with success :+1:


Yeah! There’s still hope! :smiley:

I really don’t care how the animators got their reference material, nor exactly “how they did it.” And, the Oscar® committee shouldn’t care, either. This is no time to “split hairs.”

What matters to me is simply this: “is it an outstanding show?”

After all, we remember when Disney animators, faced with an impossible number of “Dalmations,” used Xerox® machines. To produce an excellent film.

“You do what you have to do, to get the job done.” What matters is “what you did,” not “how you did it.”


I’m just shocked. That’s the sloppiest excuse ever.

1 Like

What is exactly the real problem?

Possibly the most reasonable exuse is that rotoscoping “gives unfair advantage” in character animation. Compared to very complex and difficult frame-by-frame drawn animation.

But if exactly we want to talk about unfair advantage, just consider other competing technologies or techniques.

  • Frame Interpolation: eg with 5 drawn pictures (keyframes), you can can interpolate between frames. No way that you actually would draw 14 frames per second like classic 90s Disney style.

  • 3D Cell Shaded: Now with new 3D rendering techniques NPR, and advanced evolution that do weird perspective distortions and model reshaping, you can achieve an exactly identical style to the original 2D concept art. We talk about 1:1 level of accuracy. Actually makes you wonder if actually drawing makes any sense.

  • AI: Just type some text and get an image…

So kinda if you blend “creativity” and “technology” one feeds into the other and things get very blurry and interesting. All of the doors open into creating new ways and possibilities to explore the way of how things are created.

Ironically, the art critics kinda think in lots of monolithic ways and put things into boxes inside other boxes. Rather instead they should be much more open minded and allow the creation take them into a journey…


Actually, I can’t understand what the problem is. If it was pure 3d animation would it be ok for them? Cause all I see is that they are complaining about an esthetical choice. And one that increases the work necessary. So, what’s the deal?

1 Like

Yeah! All correct! :slight_smile:

I didn’t animate the characters, that was done in the USA, I was part of the Amsterdam team and worked on the sceneries layouts, but I did had to work with both original footage and rotoscoped footage and I was impressed by how well they managed to transport the actor’s performance to a lineart draw. It wasn’t just traced on top ok :slightly_smiling_face: That’s just an insult to the animators.

Then regarding the sceneries, it didn’t existed any… even the ones that exist yet today were all 3D modeled (as a layout) … so from that end they can’t also complain.

I do think that they indeed went by the thing that “animation is for kids only”.


Well, I think they should then change the category name to Children’s Animation Film. Oh, but that would be ridiculous. That’s so limiting and nonsense, coming from something that children don’t even care about like the Oscars. Really?

1 Like

You just say it all! :slight_smile:
…The director must feel just like Chris Rock last year.

1 Like

The thing is, the Oscar Committee is extremely prejudiced against animation generally. This isn’t conjecture, they’ve been quite open about how they don’t regard animation as something to take as seriously as real film. Until that changes, we’re stuck with their narrow view of what animation should be :person_shrugging:


Now I’m seeing the light! For them the animation category is the comic relief part of the show :exploding_head:


Well, kind of. I don’t think they are so restrictive if it comes from a multimillionaire production from Disney. I bet if next year they do the same…

And by the way, if they are so openly admitting that they don’t take animation so seriously, then why pretend that they have any serious criteria at all?

1 Like

No one who pays attention to the Oscars thinks they have any serious criteria :sweat_smile: You buy the award you want, pure and simple, it’s not that different from the Video Game of the Year awards. It’s the world’s most expensive popularity contest- there’s a reason Marvel movies tend to win a bunch, Disney can afford it. “Oscar-winning” at this point is usually more of a turn-off for me than otherwise, I’d rather watch something good than something “award winning” and “artsy” given how ridiculous those terms have become


Well, I usually see the nominees as some good indications for good films, the winners… not so much.

Cause normally the nominees are nominated by the impact they caused but the winners… Well, you know.

1 Like

For me as a filmmaker, this is all very sad… but the thing is that even if they acknowledge the fact that they made a mistake and accept Apollo 10 1/2 as eligible again… we now all know that it is, most surely, among the first ones to get ditch :laughing:

1 Like

But that’s the whole point of it. Getting ditched would be a good sign. I would definitely watch a movie that did not win but got nominated. I believe that people who care about what kind of cultural products they consume are aware of this fact and would watch the animation despite the fact it was ditched or especially because it was.