motion capture: n. A technique of digitally recording movements for sports, medical, or entertainment applications.

I get it. The animation community hates all except the almighty PIXAR. Sure, Spumco and Aardman gets deitified as well, but everything PIXAR does is golden and perfect in every way. Any computer animation company that isn't PIXAR are evil, souless entities that should be damned and torn from the face of the Earth. At least, that's the vibe I'm getting from the reactions of the nominees for the Academy Award for Best Animated Picture.

The nominees are, in case you haven't been lurking around the boards or news sites:

CARS, PIXAR/DISNEY
Monster House, Sony
Happy Feet, Warner Bros.

Yeah, Cars will probably win, not because it's a great film, because it isn't, but because it's made by the almighty PIXAR. Now, you're probably looking at me and wondering what's my beef with the films of PIXAR. I have nothing but love for the company. They've made some good movies (Toy Story and Toy Story 2 [a sequel better than the original?], Monsters, Inc. [a great film], Finding Nemo [a greater film], and The Incredibles [though that movie wasn't 100% perfect]), but then they've made some so-so movies (A Bug's Life [it was good at some places and awkward in other parts]), and Cars is a so-so movie. It's going to win Best Animated Picture primarily because people feel the same way about PIXAR as they do about Aardman when they do stop-motion animation involving clay rather than pixels. In other words, any studio that's not PIXAR or Aardman or have a PIXAR executive connected to the production (see Spirited Away, which was largely brought to this country because of John Lasseter) doesn't have a chance in winning the award.

Is that fair? No, no really. Also, what isn't fair is the fact that Monster House and Happy Feet, the other two nominations in the category, are getting mostly frowns from the animation industry for the reason that they're 3D productions not made by the almighty PIXAR and could actually win the award. They're also complaining that Monster House and Happy Feet aren't really animated films, but rather motion-capture productions, not truly animated productions.

Anybody that knows me also knows that I abhore elitism in any societal environment, and that is just an elitist belief. Motion-capture is essentially the 21st century equivalent of rotoscoping. Rotoscoping was used in numerous animation productions, including Walt Disney-guided projects like Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Fantasia, Cinderella, and Sleeping Beauty and Fleischer Studios productions, including Betty Boop and Superman shorts and the Gulliver's Travels movie. Max Fleischer, animation's most underrated and ignored pioneer, invented rotoscoping in the 1910s while his brother Dave utilized it to its zenith in the 30s and 40s.

Rotoscoping continues to be in use to this day by individuals like Ralph Bakshi (who used the technique in numerous productions including American Pop, Fire and Ice, Wizards, and The Lord of the Rings), Bob Sabiston (who utilized his "Rotoshop" technique in films like Waking Life and A Scanner Darkly, and Don Bluth (who used rotoscoping in films like Titan A.E.), and studios like Production I.G., who used the technique in the O-Ren origin sequence in Kill Bill Vol. 1 and the Linkin Park video "Breaking The Habit."

Like rotoscoping, mo-cap also uses live-action to create animation. However, in the 21st century, technology has caught up so an artist wouldn't have to use still frames, but rather capture motion to be used in another form. Video game programmers use it to create life-like motion in 3D characters in their games. Medical students use it to simulate surgical techniques when cadavers and medical dummies can't be used. Lawyers use it to simulate crime scenarios, including murders and accidents. And, yes, animators use mo-cap to simulate motion in 3D animated films.

Not all of them use mo-cap, but the use of the technique is growing in the industry, as we have seen in both Monster House and Happy Feet (I bet you were wondering when I was getting back to the subject at hand). Because both films use mo-cap in their films and Cars didn't, many feel that Cars is the only "true" animated film nominated for Best Animated film. That's kind of an afront to the hard working men and women at Sony Pictures Imageworks (who also did Open Season) and Animal Logic (who created the 2004 Cartoon Network "Universe" imaging campaign) saying that their hard work isn't real animation, and they're just cheating. I bet that when PIXAR uses mo-cap for the first time (and they will one day), the critics will be enamored with the practice just because the almighty PIXAR now uses it.

I think I'd be more upset that the Academy continues to have a 2D animation bias rather than the fact that two of the three movies use motion capture techniques. Satochi Kon's Paprika and Curious George were ignored mostly for the fact that they were 2D animated films, which is kind of sad. The Academy loves 3D animation and only seven of the 20 films nominated in the category were of hand-drawn, two-dimensional animation. The only years that had more than one 2D production were the 75th Academy Awards in 2003 (the year that the John Lasseter-guided Spirited Away won the award) and the following telecast (when the Academy chose Finding Nemo over Brother Bear and The Triplets of Belleville).

But right now, Happy Feet, Monster House, and Cars are nominated for the Best Animated Feature award. Cars will likely win, and the crowd cheers hooray.

Good luck to all at Warner Bros., Village Roadhouse, Animal Logic, Sony Pictures Animation, and, of course, PIXAR. You guys and gals all did a heck of a job and deserve all the accolades, awards, and respect you get.