By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

15 Scientific Achievements in Competition for 80th Academy Awards®

Posted Friday, September 7th, 2007 - Comments Off on 15 Scientific Achievements in Competition for 80th Academy Awards®
Be Sociable, Share!

Beverly Hills, CA — The Scientific and Technical Awards Committee of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced today that 15 scientific and technical achievements have been selected for further awards consideration.

The list is made public to allow individuals and companies with similar devices or claims of prior art the opportunity to submit their achievements for review. The deadline to submit additional entries is Thursday, September 20.

The committee has selected the following methods or devices for further consideration:

  • Prosthetic Transfer; Tinsley Transfers
  • Stunt Fire Safety Gel; Fire for Hire
  • Pressure Sensor Actuator; Precision Stunt Specialists
  • Tiny Fogger; Look Solutions
  • Schneider 35mm Image Quality Projection Test Film (CLT-1, CLT-2000, CLT-006); Schneider Optics, Inc.
  • Kodak Vision2 Color Negative Films; Eastman Kodak Company
  • Diagnosis and Remediation of High Speed Emulsion Stress Syndrome; Composite Components Company
  • Joker-Bug – Compact Versatile HMI Lighting Fixtures; K 5600, Inc.
  • Realflow (V.4); Next Limit Technologies
  • Industrial Light & Magic Water System; ILM
  • FSIM-Fluid Simulation Pipeline at Digital Domain; Digital Domain
  • The Sandstorm Software System; Sony Pictures Imageworks
  • Houdini’s Unified Dynamics Simulation Environments (DOPS); Side Effects Software, Inc.
  • Technicolor Digital Printer Lights; Technicolor
  • Skater Dolly Products Family; P+S Technik GmbH

After thorough investigations are conducted on each of the entries, the committee will meet in early December to vote on recommendations to the Academy’s Board of Governors, which will make the final awards decisions.

The Scientific and Technical Awards will be presented at the Beverly Wilshire hotel in Beverly Hills on Saturday, February 9, 2008.

For more information, contact Awards Administration Director Rich Miller at 310-247-3000, ext. 129, or via e-mail at scitech@oscars.org.

Be Sociable, Share!

Posted in Awards Watch, Note Pad | Comments Off on 15 Scientific Achievements in Competition for 80th Academy Awards®

Comments are closed.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon