Due to constant abuse from this IP range, all interactive traffic is blocked. If you are running a legitimate crawler/robot, ensure that it properly identifies itself via the user agent with a contact site or address. Sign up or log in to customize your list. Here's how it works: Anybody can ask a question The best answers are voted up and rise to the top Given that The Lego Movie displayed a new style of animation, was there any specific technical reason why it was not nominated in the category of "Best Animated Feature Film" at the 87th Academy Awards I'm not looking for a general opinion on if the movie was good enough or not. I am more curious if the movie lacked something on a technical front (if any) that didn't let it get nominated. Here's a Variety article on this very thing with 5 reasons: “Lego” landed just one mention — in the song category for its infectious “Everything Is Awesome” anthem — but not in the animated feature category, where many were predicting that the toon blockbuster might win.
That oversight comes as a total shock to Oscar pundits — arguably the year’s biggest snub, alongside the fact that “Selma” placed in only two categories (for which theories abound). From the point of view of the animation community, however, there was always a risk. The reasons reported are as follows: Animation professionals pick the nominations A record number of eligible toons means tougher competition Voters watch all 20 contenders, so the best rises The animation branch loves handmade movies Traditional forms and classical storytelling win out The original report is here: 5 Reasons the Academy Overlooked ‘The LEGO Movie’ Looks like there is no one overriding answer, it was a combination of things. Given Variety's place in Hollywood I would imagine it's pretty accurate. I don't have the minute count for the film but the rules require: An animated feature is defined by the academy as a film with a running time of more than 40 minutes in which characters' performances are created using a frame-by-frame technique, a significant number of the major characters are animated, and animation figures in no less than 75 percent of the running time.
It's possible that the live-action sections added up up to over 25% of the film's content, and caused it to be out of the running. That being said, I have a difficult time believing, from my memory, that the live-action portion was 25% of the film. As noted by Ankit Sharma in the comments, my memory is correct. The film was 100 minutes and the live action section was only 10 minutes long, making it only 10% of the running time. This means that this technical reason is not a possible explanation for why the film wasn't nominated. Sign up or log in Sign up using Google Sign up using Email and Password Post as a guest By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service. Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged animation academy-awards the-lego-movie or ask your own question.I almost gave The Lego Movie 10/10. In fact, as I write this review I am still wondering just why it’s not getting a perfect score, because I can’t think of any faults.
I guess the very nature of the film dictates that some of the frantic action and comedy set-pieces are a bit hard to follow, just a bit . . . . . . . . . . busy. But that’s because it’s a movie world of Lego. EVERYTHING is either created to look like real Lego, or as close as possible to it. And for someone like myself, an only child who spent many days with either books firing up my imagination or my buckets of Lego being built into the craziest designs that popped into my head, it was just about the perfect Lego movie that I never knew I wanted. The plot of the movie runs thus: Lord Business (Will Ferrell) defeats the good Vitruvius (Morgan Freeman) and gets his hands on the Kragle, a deadly weapon that could end the universe as the Lego folk know it. Fast forward by eight and a half years, Emmett (Chris Pratt) is a good citizen in a Lego world ruled by the man who WAS Lord Business but is now President Business. Emmett follows instructions, builds what he is told to build and generally behaves himself.
His world is turned upside down when he sees the beautiful Wyldstyle (Elizabeth Banks) and then falls down a big hole that ends up with him landing on the Piece Of Resistance. A prophecy says that whoever has the piece will be a master builder, someone capable of stopping President Business and saving the world. But President Business certainly doesn’t want that, and he’ll use his best man, the all-in-one GoodCop/Bad Cop (Liam Neeson), to ensure that it doesn’t happen. As the action heats up, Emmett finds out how he can use his abilities best. He also finds out that Lego Batman (Will Arnett) is a bit of a pain in the backside, some older characters (Benny, voiced by Charlie Day) are desperate to build their classic designs, and that there are many worse places to be than Cloud Cuckoo Land. There’s an element to The Lego Movie that’s hard to avoid. It IS one big, superb, advert for Lego. But, in all honesty, does Lego really need any major marketing boost, even in these lean times?
Lego has always been a favourite toy, for all age groups. And, hey, the movie title ensures that people going into this should realise that this isn’t anything other than a celebration of all of those little bricks and accessory parts. It’s front and centre, it’s the very building block, essentially, of almost every scene, and it’s not something that could be removed without the entire movie falling apart (no pun intended). Unlike The Internship or Battleship, this is how to use a brand properly. The voice cast assembled for this movie is superb. As offbeat as all of the characters are, everyone seems perfectly suited to their roles, whether it’s Pratt as the potential hero who has no confidence in himself, Banks being as good as ever (I still love her, even in Lego form . . . . . is that so wrong?), Ferrell as the villain, or even the cameos from the likes of Jonah Hill, Channing Tatum, Nick Offerman and Shaquille O’Neal. And anyone who has seen the trailer may already suspect that Liam Neeson gets to steal almost every scene that he’s in as Good Cop/Bad Cop.
But the vocal cast, as great as it is, pales in comparison to the sharp script (written by directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller), the wealth of imagination on display in every sequence, and the little details on display that provide extra laughs at every opportunity. I don’t think I’ve seen a film with such a high gag rate since Zucker, Abrahams & Zucker at their peak. The most unexpected treat that the movie provides, however, is in just how clever it all is. Not smug, but wonderfully crafted in ways that allows it to work on a number of levels simultaneously. As is the case with many family movies, there’s a message or two to be learned along the way, but even the slightly sappier moments are well handled, never outstaying their welcome before the jokes start flying around again. Lord and Miller (who can thank Dan and Kevin Hageman for their help in shaping this story) are three for three at the moment. Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs is great fun. 21 Jump Street is, arguably, even better.