PDA

View Full Version : 2003 Oscar FX contenders announced


RobertoOrtiz
12-19-2003, 08:26 PM
AMPAS announcement on CGNetworks.com:
>> VFX Oscar Nominees << (http://www.cgnetworks.com/story.php?story_id=1849)

Nominees:
* "The Hulk"
* "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"
* "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World"
* "Peter Pan"
* "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl"
* "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines"
* "X2"


Quote from Cinescape:
"The candidates for the Academy Award for Best Visual Effects of 2003 have been announced and seven films are in contention to win Oscar gold. They are 20th Century Fox's MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD and X2: X-MEN UNITED, Buena Vista's PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL, New Line Cinema's THE LORD OF THE RINGS: RETURN OF THE KING, Universal Pictures' THE HULK and PETER PAN, and Warner Bros.' TERMINATOR 3: RISE OF THE MACHINES.

What happens next is that the studios will assemble a 15-minute reel showing the effects highlights from the picture nominated, which will be shown to a nominating committee on January 21. The top three of the seven films selected by the panel will then go on to be the final candidates for the Oscar which will be presented on February 29 next year. "

>>link<< (http://www.cinescape.com/0/editorial.asp?aff_id=0&this_cat=Movies&action=page&type_id=&cat_id=270338&obj_id=40450)
-R

FabioMSilva
12-19-2003, 08:57 PM
RETURN OF THE KING WILL WIN! FOR SURE!:beer:

vfx fan
12-19-2003, 10:04 PM
Well, "The Return of the King" is a given.

I was kinda surprised "X2: X-Men United" was there instead of "The Matrix Revolutions." To me, it wasn't as memorable when considering its fx. (Though "The Matrix Revolutions" was less memorable as a movie.)

My predictions are:
[list=a]
"Hulk"
"Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World"
"The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King"
[/list=a]

The only project I'm really worried about is "Hulk." I just hope it gets nominated -- the most spectacular achievement in CG animation since Gollum and Dobby. ;)

VictorG
12-19-2003, 10:09 PM
So the Matrix was snubbed?

:hmm:

-Victor

aurora
12-19-2003, 10:46 PM
Someone please explain to me how the Hulk made it and Matrix -Revolutions did not! Mind you I personally felt the VFX in the Hulk were just about the worst of the year so you'll have a hard time convincing me. Not that it matters ROTK should easily take it. Master and Commander had great effects but ROTK is a masterpiece of VFX.

malducin
12-19-2003, 11:14 PM
Is it me or the finalists were announced earlier this year.

The Matrix was not precisely snuffed (at least not in the usual sense of these types of awards). The VFX Branch of the Academy is the one that selects the 7 finalists and from there we have the bakeoff. Could be it wasn't submitted on time (like what happened on one of Pixar's short, For the Birds if I remember right) or the 2 sequels could have split a vote.

And I disagree, Hulk had some of the best VFX of the year.

MCronin
12-19-2003, 11:32 PM
I think WB realized that the Matrix movies didn't have a chance at winning and decided not to submit them. ;p Honesly I think Terminator 3 was more impressive than either Matrix movie so good for WB.

I'm hoping for the Hulk mostly. I saw all the rest save Peter Pan, and while they are all excellent, there's a few things about that Hulk that really impressed me.

Windex
12-20-2003, 01:28 AM
OUCH!!!

thanks, that was good Leigh.

WhiteRabbitObj
12-20-2003, 01:29 AM
I hope ROTK takes the third in a row to complete the trilogy of FX awards for WETA. The other films are really good too but my heart lies with ROTK.

And I agree with the dissension on The Hulk being bad FX... the effects were phenomenal... it's just a green person doesn't look real. It's that old, don't make it real, make it believable... ILM unfortunately made the Hulk real instead of believable. :cry:

I also can't believe neither of the Matrix movies were nominated. That's kind of a kick in the face to ESC. The films did suck, but that doesn't mean the effects shouldn't have at least been recognized (tho I don't think should have won anyhow).

RenderFX
12-20-2003, 02:56 AM
My greetings to you all cg Talk members!

I cant believe u guys say that about the Matrix movies!!!!
I understand that a large amount of people around the world did not understand the first Matrix, and when they thought they understood the 1st movie then the sequel was released with a much more mindblowing story and a innovative cinematographic language. Simply put: the matrix movies aint for simple minded people, and i believe that a good reason that they didnt go into competition in the academy awards is that they raised the bar to high and they are way above other conventional special effects that always focus into quantity, and not in quality.
For example, Weta says : "Ok, lets make outstanding VFX by making a realistic CG character (gollum) and a massive battle of elfes and orks or wathever that looks like a crowdy war, because quantity equals quality for us".
In the other hand the Wachowsky brothers, John Gaeta and the ESC team put all their effort to produce an innovate class of cinematography, a high quality cinema, that achieves very elegant VFXs and a high amount of unpredictable surprises. They found the way to do an other kind of cinema, and that definetly leaves other conventional movies out of competition. Im not saying that the LOTR movies nor Hulk or other movies in this genre are bad, im just saying that they dont innovate in anything, they all look the same, and the only thing they do to try to impress the audience is to enlarge the "quantity" of the conventional VFX that we can see in any generic high-budget hollywood movie.

This my opinion, and i just wanted to share it with you guys.

Excuse my bad english, but im sure u understood what I was talking about.

P.D.

IMO, the Matrix movies places 1st in my favorite movie list, and LOTR places second (yes, i really like the LOTR movies, but Matrix is better for several reasons :P)

leif3d
12-20-2003, 03:37 AM
How can the Matrix not be there?...and master and commander is?.......that shows the inacuracy of the oscars....dumb asses...that makes me angry...I'm not asking for an Oscar for the Matrix as a Movie ...but it has revolutionized the industry in a way that many nominees in that list have been inspired.....just plain dumb...they lose credibility that way....

xou
12-20-2003, 03:41 AM
Well, say what you will about the Matrix films in terms of acting, storytelling,etc. you have to acknowledge the VFX in these films. For some committee to say that Revolutions wasn't one of the top 7 VFX films of the year is not just ridiculous, it's suspicious.

Who makes these decisions? Something is CLEARLY amiss with the selection process when a film like Revolutions isn't even considered in the bakeoff. If you love CG and VFX then you should be very concerned about this...something is not right.

bjoern
12-20-2003, 03:42 AM
i think Hulk has no entitlement to be in the List!
yhe Matrix has to take this Place!! :curious:

regards
bjoern

malducin
12-20-2003, 03:43 AM
How can the Matrix not be there?

Another poster in the other therad said it better. It could have been reason like WB not submitting it or some other stuff outside ESC control.

im just saying that they dont innovate in anything, they all look the same,

Excuse but that's just plain dumb or ignorant. Maybe checking something like Cinefex or CGW will show the contrary.

Who makes these decisions?

The VFX Branch, headed by Richard Edlund. It's composied of about 35 pros.

leigh
12-20-2003, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by RenderFX
I understand that a large amount of people around the world did not understand the first Matrix, and when they thought they understood the 1st movie then the sequel was released with a much more mindblowing story and a innovative cinematographic language. Simply put: the matrix movies aint for simple minded people, and i believe that a good reason that they didnt go into competition in the academy awards is that they raised the bar to high and they are way above other conventional special effects that always focus into quantity, and not in quality.

So basically you are saying that anyone that did not like the Matrix doesn't like it because they don't understand it, and they don't understand it because they are simple?

Sorry to argue but people are entitled to their opinions. People have many reasons for disliking films, and mostly it really has nothing to do with intelligence. It comes down to personal taste :)
(Okay, yes personal taste can be dictated somewhat by a persons intelligence, but even a stupid brain can interpret something which means that a "simpleton" could understand any plot in their own way. My point being that most plots essentially be understood/interpreted in some way by most people.)

Besides this I could argue all day about the apparent "authenticity" and "originality" of the Matrix's essential storyline, but I won't (this is not the time or place), hehe :)
Needless to say it's really essentially an extremely simple storyline (when you strip away all the fluff - the same goes for almost all stories really), so it's certainly not been left out because it's "outclassed" anything else.

I also have to disagree about the Matrix "raising the bar too high". It's effects are totally on par with those being done by a number of other companies.
So yeah, in light of that I certainly think it's odd that they were excluded - the work done on the Matrix is as deserving as some of the other nominated films.

That said, there is probably an explanation for this, as malducin has already mentioned.

On a side note, has anyone here seen Peter Pan? It hasn't opened here yet... I have to admit that the film didn't seem very appealing to me, but from what I could see of the VFX in the trailer they looked rather nice...

RenderFX
12-20-2003, 04:07 AM
Excuse but that's just plain dumb or ignorant. Maybe checking something like Cinefex or CGW will show the contrary.

The subject that we are discussing here are the movies that where recently nominated, and when i was referring myself that they "all look the same" i meant that they use the old school of putting a large quantity of before-seen VFX, wich is a lazy way to make a movie. They just improve the quantity, they lack of elegance, and they dont innovate anything.

And i dont think my reply was nether "ignorant" nor "dumb".

leigh
12-20-2003, 04:16 AM
i meant that they use the old school of putting a large quantity of before-seen VFX, wich is a lazy way to make a movie.

Weta Digital spent a total of 7 years developing software scripts, specialised systems, proprietry techniques, Massive, etc to make the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I think it's a little unfair to call that "lazy".

I think all the films nominated had their fair share of hard work and expertise. It's sad to see a VFX-heavy film like The Matrix excluded from an accolade, but that doesn't mean that the ones nominated have no merit.

NightSky
12-20-2003, 04:36 AM
I think it's a little unfair to call that "lazy".

Very well put Leigh.

After reading through the last 2 pages, I've noticed a bunch of movie/effects bashing, which, I'm not ashamed to say, rather annoys me. The fact that Matrix:Revolutions isn't in the list does not mean we should speculate & get all irate as to why it's not there. Obviously, as these awards aren't done by highschoolers, there is a good reason. Second, the fact that a large green ugly giant destroying everything doesn't happen everyday is largely why the Hulk appears unrealistic to some people. What they fail to think about is that the effects produced a very realistic view of what the Hulk could look like, if he were real. As for the bashing of the various movies & effects, the artists that worked hard on these films deserve our support & fair critisism, rather than "it had the worst effects I've ever seen". It's the artists here that are honored with the awards. I think they at least deserve our respect for such an accomplishment, as they are our peers.

Personally, I think Weta Digital & LOTR:ROTK deserves the award, because of the sheer grandure of the project, as well as the incredible facial animation of gollum. Also, let's not forget the traditional maquettes, armor & props produced, which also counts for visual effects.

WhiteRabbitObj
12-20-2003, 04:36 AM
Originally posted by RenderFX
They just improve the quantity, they lack of elegance, and they dont innovate anything.


You think that the Matrix sequels innovated though? They were only evolutionary as well, not revolutionary. There is nothing mind blowing in the Matrix films, it's simply really well done effects taken one step higher than previous films on a large scale. The first Matrix was truly revolutionary because of bullet-time but it only added to that technique in the sequels, not invented wholly new things, not from my perspective anyhow. I mean, it's still an amazing achievement and I know how hard the guys who did the effects worked to complete the film, but I'm just trying to prove your own comment to be too open and include your own thoughts.

And if you think that the stuff in the LOTR movies is "before-seen" I would love to know what movies you watch and where I can get them, because Massive and Gollum are the biggest innovations since bullet-time.

malducin
12-20-2003, 04:36 AM
On a side note, has anyone here seen Peter Pan?

It doesn't open officially until Decmber 25, 2003, so noe one has seen it. ILM, Digital Domain, Imageworks, R!ot and Weta Workshop worked on it.

I also have to disagree about the Matrix "raising the bar too high".

Well that was Joel Silver and John Gaeta talking out of their behinds. No need to punish the ESC folks and from other facilities for silly comments like that.

and they dont innovate anything. ... And i dont think my reply was nether "ignorant" nor "dumb".

My comment was in regards to that particular comment not you entire reply, which is ignorant given the many articles and facts out there about most of the nominees.

VFX are judged not just on innovation but also on superb execution which is why films like Master and Commander or Gladiator make it to the Bake Offs. Seems people don't know how the VFX process works at the Academy. Also (in theory) story should have no bearing. It doesn't matter of the story was good or not, simple or comples, in order to judge VFX and that's what the awards do (most of the time).

Things might look the same but behind the scenes stuff might be very innovative. By your own naive measure, the Matrix sequels wouldn't need to be nominated, we've seen it all before. Just to witness:

X2: propieytary particle systems for the bamfs, tetrad volume rendering for the Cerebro visualizations (subject of a SIGGRAPH sketch)

Hulk: improved sub surface scattering, muscle dynamics coupled with skin relaxation techniques, constrained dynamics for soft bodies.

Master and Commander: superb execution, miniature ships rotoe3d out and into real ocean plates, CG boats.

T3: new rendering techniques for the nuclear explosions (actually the subject of a SIGGRAPH paper), level set methods of fluid dynamics, matchmoving of CG elements with a real person.

And so on. If we just went for looks then we might as well eliminate the VFX category. Heck lets eliminate some of the other tech ones like Sound, after all it's all the same just mixing different sounds, changing pitch, etc.

I suggest reading up.

WhiteRabbitObj
12-20-2003, 04:39 AM
Originally posted by NightSky
Second, the fact that a large green ugly giant destroying everything doesn't happen everyday is largely why the Hulk appears unrealistic to some people. [/B]

This is the same point I was making on my post on page 1. They made him realistic but not believable. Really though, you can call that bad effects because it's bad design. The Hulk certainly did look like a green person probably would look, but there is a problem when most everyone thinks he looks fake, something needs to be fixed.

NightSky
12-20-2003, 04:49 AM
I don't meant to briefly go off-topic, but I have been thinking how they could've made the Hulk a more believable creature. It's always very tough to take a comic book character & make it realistic. The movie's version of the Hulk looks exactly like the comic book character, only realistically rendered, yet the facial proportions, because they're from a comic book, aren't as realistic. Kinda like the first Frankenstein's squarish head, as opposed to the more current Mary Shelly's version.

My point, for effects, is that they took the orriginal comic book creation, rendered the orriginal design as realistically as they could, without changing the orriginal comic book appearance. While some may not prefer this stylized & somewhat unrealistic version, it still does the trick of making the comic book character come to life. Think of it this way, if spiderman was real, do you really think he would wear that increadibly tight & ultra detailed costume??

macqdor
12-20-2003, 04:56 AM
So the Matrix was snubbed.........wow my predictions are becoming more and more true by the day.

Lets take a close look at this Matrix. But first the others. XMen 2 scenes with Nightcrawler invading the White House was trully awesome/ and my sources tell me that alone impressed a lot of people, that and the crisp look of the XMen themselves.. And they had some key moments visually as well. "Pirates" deserves to be nominated. I'm not so sure about T3 but I'll stipulate on the grounds of perhaps the female machine and Gov Arnold fighting and etc. HULK deserves a nomination simply because of the HULK himself. The character suffered from a weak plot and bad direction of the director. I dont blame ILM skills for the HULK not doing well well at the Box Office. But they have agreed to do a sequel for HULK and ILM did do a godo job with the CGI Hulk. (Only people who try to compare Gollium with the HULK think the cgi with HULK looked bad) But thats where there wrong.

Peter Pan hmmmm havent seen it but the visuals do look stunning to say the least. Will I see it heck no but it still might deserve a nomination. It wont win though.

LOTR:Return of The King


LOTR could win here and could win in all catagories for visuals and sound. But if LOTR wins Movie of the Year don't expect it to win all the S/FX catagories just the nature of the beast.

Hollywood stubborn about sc/fi and fantasy films but who knows I'm optimistic :-)

Now back to the Matrix 2&3. Basically if you get down to the basics what new did the Matrix movies offer in regards to special effects and sound and visuals. Yes the Highway scene was top notch but who still remembers it. And everyhting in M2 and M3 was already done but at a lower scale in Matrix One which they won some trophies for.

I remember Nightcrawler in the white house and that was way back in May. I remember a cgi HULK flying through San Francisco and that scene with HULK and the air force Pilot was awesome.

No one remembers the Matrix anymore and like I said last year around this same time. "By years end of 2003 people are going to be saying Matrix who? whats a Matrix"

And thats what just happened in regards to Oscars and etc. Matrix who?

that movie came out this year?

when ???

we can debate about the theory of the Matrix and i for one like the theory of The matrix and the science involved. But Matrix collapsed on itself days prior to its release.

MCronin
12-20-2003, 04:57 AM
There were a couple things in the Hulk that did bug me. I wasn't fond of the poodle, and at some points his face is so animated he looks like he belongs in a Tex Avery short, but the attention to detail in the Hulk is unreal. The scene where he applies a Boston Crab on that helicopter is great, the machine gun fire bouncing off his skin and you can see every bullet impact, the whole desert chase, and the fight sequence at the end, all really amazing, creative and difficult work. It's a shame that some people just can't see how brilliant and technically excellent that stuff was because they didn't like the movie.


Originally posted by Leigh
[BOn a side note, has anyone here seen Peter Pan? It hasn't opened here yet... I have to admit that the film didn't seem very appealing to me, but from what I could see of the VFX in the trailer they looked rather nice... [/B]

It comes out in a week in the States. I'm sort of embarassed to admit I'm really looking foward to it. The effects in the trailer didn't look realistic, but rather very creative and artistic, and that's why I want to see it.

RenderFX
12-20-2003, 04:59 AM
Dear Leigh
So basically you are saying that anyone that did not like the Matrix doesn't like it because they don't understand it, and they don't understand it because they are simple?

They are two ways u can criticise a movie: with a simple "i liked the movie" or "i didnt like it" opinion, or with an objective and professional opinion.

The "i liked the movie" or "i didnt like it" opinion is very subjective, and i really think that its just what a simple-minded or non-professional person would say about the Matrix.

In the other hand, if u digg further in, and analyze and understand the various components that a movie is made off like the storyline, the tempo, what kind of audiovisual language is used and the purpose of making the movie and VFXs, only then an opinion is worthy to pay attention because of its objective and professional analysis. And if u do so, then u will realize that ur standing in front of one of the most complex and elaborated movies ever made, and when im sayng "most complex" im referring in terms of braincells that u kill to make a decent and elegant movie in every aspect, wich is not just using the old technique of use-everything-that-has-been-done-before because it WILL sell.
The Wachowsky brothers really put their souls in their work in a way that isnt usual, and that IMO MUST be respected because of their excelent results. We must also not forget that most of the recent movies has been directly influenced by The Matrix style. The mimic of these movies in the movie-industry is undeniable.
I understand that a professional mind can spend hard time trying to understand the "meaning" of the movie because of its technicall complexity (in every aspect), but that doesnt allow that person to make a definitiv statement about a movie of this level.

leigh
12-20-2003, 05:00 AM
Originally posted by MCronin
The effects in the trailer didn't look realistic, but rather very creative and artistic, and that's why I want to see it.

Yeah that's what I thought looked really interesting too. The shot of the ship with the cracking ice was cool in a fairytale book kinda way. Very interesting look.

Chaz
12-20-2003, 05:05 AM
I'm actually a little suprised Matrix Reloaded didn't make the cut this year. The Burly Brawl scene was one of the best FX sequences I've seen in a long time :bowdown: not to mention the highway scene at the end.

I remember being very underwhelmed by T3 personally.

leigh
12-20-2003, 05:06 AM
RenderFX, I know what you're saying, and I agree that people should dig deeper into their reasons behind their opinions, but all opinions essentially start from a "I like it" or "I don't like it" decision :)

At any rate, I don't want to hijack this thread to air my personal views on the Matrix films, since I could easily talk a lot about my opinions on them.

My own personal opinons of the films aside, I do certainly agree that they deserve respect for the effort that went into them. But like I've mentioned already, there is surely a reason for their exclusion from the nomination list.

WhiteRabbitObj
12-20-2003, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by RenderFX

The Wachowsky brothers really put their souls in their work in a way that isnt usual, and that IMO MUST be respected because of their excelent results. We must also not forget that most of the recent movies has been directly influenced by The Matrix style. The mimic of these movies in the movie-industry is undeniable.
I understand that a professional mind can spend hard time trying to understand the "meaning" of the movie because of its technicall complexity (in every aspect), but that doesnt allow that person to make a definitiv statement about a movie of this level.

You really seem to idolize the Wachowski's. Where you see a deep, well made film, myself, and most people, see a film that tries to be deep and is a mess of filmmaking. The editing and pace were incredibly bad, from my (schooled in film, not ignorant, before you say it) perspective and the story tried so hard to be deep that is inverted all the way back around like some sort of filmic mobius loop and had nothing there.

Your statement about "making a statement about a movie of this level" is pretty lofty as well. What level exactly are those films? You just say "they're good filmmaking and complex" but you're not offering any evidence except your opinion... which you're certainly entitled to, but you shouldn't present it as fact. Also, to say that recent movies have emulated the matrix movieS (with a capital S) is entirely false. It is undeniable that many films have emulated the original The Matrix, but the sequels are too recent to have been emulated in any way yet. There are few who will argue the point that The Matrix was and still is influential to filmmaking, but I highly doubt anyone will agree to that point on the sequels.


Anyhoo... enough hijacking this thread back into a Matrix argument. Amazing how polarized people are on this subject.

----

I hope Pirates wins if ROTK does not, because the sheer skills displayed in the execution of that film is stunning. The entire film from pre to post production completed in under a year? That's unbelievable. The people who worked on Pirates must have become symbiotes with their workstation chairs by the time the film was completed!

MCronin
12-20-2003, 05:34 AM
Originally posted by WhiteRabbit.obj
I hope Pirates wins if ROTK does not, because the sheer skills displayed in the execution of that film is stunning. The entire film from pre to post production completed in under a year? That's unbelievable. The people who worked on Pirates must have become symbiotes with their workstation chairs by the time the film was completed!

I think this is a really difficult field and it's going to be interesting to see how it turns out. RotK is the ultimate marriage of computer generated and practical effects but I actually sort of hope it doesn't win because each of these films had something they did really well. Both the Hulk and T3 had a couple of shots in them that just floored me. The bamf effect from X2 is probably the most original effect from any of the movies, and the tornado sequence was oustanding. PotC showed that ILM has perfected the process of combining digital prosthetics and digital doubles with live actors. Master and Commander is a premiere example of fluid dynamics and using effects in service of a story. Really great work all around.

RenderFX
12-20-2003, 05:36 AM
WhiteRabbit.obj.-

Nobody said that u where ignorant, but theres a serious error in your professional judgement when you state that "The editing and pace were incredibly bad", Ive been a Avid editor since 5 years, and i have noticed that one of that movies strongest points is the almost flawless editing and continuity that the shots has in that movie. :surprised


You just say "they're good filmmaking and complex" but you're not offering any evidence except your opinion

I think the BIG evidence is the movie itself, im just clarifying an obvious breakthrough that the matrix had in the film industry.
Go ahead and analyze it frame by frame!!!


Leigh.-

Ofcourse i value Wetas exceptional effort they putted in the LOTR movies, i really admire their work and find it very inspiring. But i dont think that they innnovate somehow in the audiovisual language, wich i think is very relevant in a movie. The massive battles are really impressive, and they really raise the movies epic greatness. :thumbsup:

malducin
12-20-2003, 05:42 AM
I'm actually a little suprised Matrix Reloaded didn't make the cut this year.

A few months ago WB decided to only submit Revolutions so as to avoid the problem of splitting votes between the 2 sequels.

I'm sort of embarassed to admit I'm really looking foward to it.

Well me too. It seems a more faithful adaptation, probably preserving some of the darker moments of the story.

MCronin
12-20-2003, 05:45 AM
Originally posted by RenderFX
Ive been a Avid editor since 5 years, and i have noticed that one of that

I'm sorry I glanced at your profile because I wanted to see if you had a website and couldn't help but notice you just turned 19. You've been a professional editor since the age of 14?

Anyhow, I thought the editing was terrible as well. I'll give you one shining example. The initial docking sequence at Zion in Reloaded. Seriously that scene had to be 5 minutes long. It went on for an eterinty. It did nothing to advance the story and actually in my eyes did damage to it. The tower operators are sitting in this clean white room in white uniforms with what looks to be highly advanced technology while the rest of Zion is broken down cobbled-together junk, wires everywhere, old LCD monitors... It just didn't fit. It looked like it came out of an entirely different movie, like THX-1138 meets Minority Report.

WhiteRabbitObj
12-20-2003, 05:49 AM
That's because they are in a Matrix construct MCronin, but don't worry that you were confused, because it took me a while to figure out what the hell that room was too. I think your statement about the editing in that scene is right too.

softdistortion
12-20-2003, 05:56 AM
:hmm:

RenderFX
12-20-2003, 05:58 AM
Yes, Im 19 years old and proud of it!. I forgot to tell you that my dad is a filmmaker and it has been a while since i work with him. And let me tell you that im trained from a very young age to analyze movies from EVERY aspect. And dont get so surprised about my age, theres a lot of young and talented people around here that is very qualified to make their own professional statements about movie making.

now im tired (3:50 AM here)

Gnite Folk, cya 2morrow!

MCronin
12-20-2003, 06:01 AM
Ok, I'll buy that, but then the question is, why? Why do they need to be in the Matrix to dock a ship in the real world? Why do they need physical representations of hi-tech computers they consciously know do not exist, to interact with? It's one of the many things my feeble mind will never grasp about the Matrix sequels. :p

gigatron
12-20-2003, 06:23 AM
As dumb as it sounds, I personally would give Hulk the ups in this..

Why? Well.. it's not so revolutionary.. it's not so real.. yet.. it is the most complicated character I've ever heard about, seen, anything.. The future of animation and even in video games in the long long run down the road... will be to push the limits even further, having the humans even further modeled in and out.. All muscles, all bones, even body parts. Mix that with physical properties, not just visually, but really physics.. you get a bullet calculated fly through and voila... the computer does it for you per say..

The detail and realism, and yet simplicity of achieving these things it will have to go on and on.. Not that it should be like a template system.. but sort of..

Kind of off topic, but what matters is the detail of the human body structure. The muscle groups and all the fancy in hulk is what really impressed me, even though I could tell he was a character composed with other backgrounds.. it was still quite fascinating...

Imagine the future, where you can virtually use a microscope on a character and seen life on the skin..

Sounds more like something useful for medical purposes .. but I don't know.. I just have this urge to achieve such things in the future down the long road.

Hmm so that's my little rant on hulk and how I see it..

Otherwise well.. xmen2 I don't see why it's really a nominee, I mean it's such a great movie overall not just comic adaptation.. but hmm..

Matrix.. well the last matrix I didn't find that fascinating.. the fight scenes were sooooooo fake.. I mean there was some kick ass stuff.. but hmm the far too many fake scenes were a bit bothersome. Well there were some really really kick ass fun scenes (not even that realistic.. yet quite realistic like highway scene.. somet things you can OBVIOUSLY see they are fake.. but they were still so much fun!)

Lord of the rings.. well.. sure.. for sure.. great stuff with crowds oh yeah oh yeah.. but some scenes were just stupendous.. like the dragon.. it felt like a video game.. some scenes were ooover done.. kind of like matrix fight scenes.. awful awful awful... But the crowd scenes are so believable :cool:

I must say LOTR has its goodies yet... I don't know.. I like hulk's uniqueness of sort..

Pirates of the caribean.. well I haven't seen it yet.. unfortunately.. but from the trailers I've seen lol fun fun :D So that should be a possilbe candidate but then again I didn't see the movie :wise:

The Cross
12-20-2003, 06:24 AM
Originally posted by MCronin
Ok, I'll buy that, but then the question is, why? Why do they need to be in the Matrix to dock a ship in the real world? Why do they need physical representations of hi-tech computers they consciously know do not exist, to interact with? It's one of the many things my feeble mind will never grasp about the Matrix sequels. :p


Maybe it's cheaper on the Hardware, and it saves alot of space when you live in an underground world ?



Back on topic... I've yet to see Return of the King, and knowing Weta's reputation for the work done in Two Towers, i'd say it a good chance they'll get it.

If not, then i'd go with Pirates of the Caribbean. I often wonder what it would be like to animate the digital pirates while tracking them with the real character.

skyfinch
12-20-2003, 06:31 AM
Hulk has some incredible character animation, in my opinion, some of the best ever. There is so much weight behind his movements, all balanced out with very subtle details, like the tendons appearing from his neck, as he frowns. Hes not exactly an easy character to animate, either, being so disproportioned and all, yet he retains all the details needed to keep him human. But that's about it. Nothing else in the movie, visually, stands out.

For me, besides the bad acting, and terrible plot, all the weird "comic book style" cuts were lame and somewhat distracting.

By the way, the part when the Hulks father (older version) reaches up and touches the Hulks face, after hes destroyed the lab, was horrific. What kind of acting was that?

Dark Lee
12-20-2003, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by aurora
Someone please explain to me how the Hulk made it and Matrix -Revolutions did not! Mind you I personally felt the VFX in the Hulk were just about the worst of the year so you'll have a hard time convincing me. Not that it matters ROTK should easily take it. Master and Commander had great effects but ROTK is a masterpiece of VFX.

Too bad you (and others) feel this way about The Hulk...

It still shows on how differently ppl in our industry can look at FX...

To me the FX in The Hulk were meant directly to be a real world's cartoon, which it delivered admirably!
The Hulk had feeling, he was alive in the world shown on camera..
(not something I can say about a lot of other FX movies)

The Matrix Revolutions, albeit having some great FX, some of it was through sheer on-screen pollution....
"There where everything moves, you cannot see that which stands still"
This was one of my (few) gripes with Revolutions FX wise...that and the "dead puppet" feel I STILL saw in some of the character FX (although a LOT less then in Reloaded)

So, with all the other contenders, I do think its justified that Revolutions loses out this time...

But if they make ROTK lose this, my faith in the Academy as an unbiased institute (even if that is just "pretends", lets not get deep in politics here) will be damaged beyond repair.

Heck, if WETA (& other ROTK teams) get screwed on this, I wouldn't be stunned if they would pull a "George Lucas" on the Academy, heh...

cerulean
12-20-2003, 06:53 AM
Just my 2 cents on a movie I don't think was mentioned yet............but I thought League of Extraordinary Gentlemen had better effects than Master and Commander.,..



again..just an opinion based on my eyes, not my mind.

silv
12-20-2003, 07:07 AM
Matix revolutions not there.... little babies...

Matrix had the best fight ever... the scene with the ceilling walking monsters. That is the paragon of all martial arts fighting scenes.

NightSky
12-20-2003, 07:15 AM
Matix revolutions not there.... little babies...

Please, before making derogatory coments, read the previous posts. As stated before by many, there is a good reason both Matrix films weren't in the list, which is currently unknown at this point. Until we find out if there was politics going on, we should refrane from making these sorts of comments.

PezDSpensr
12-20-2003, 07:53 AM
It comes down to two different movies.

Now I'm saying this as a guy who just fools around with CG in his spare times but has watched, analysed and loved effects since an all night coca-cola caffeine binge with a sattalite dish, 1000 channels and an unlimited supply of Star Wars, Aliens, Big Trouble in Little China and Poltergeist...So I know what I like.

And it comes down to The Hulk and Return of the King.

And why, you may ask? Because of the CG characters.

The Hulk put a large green testosterone overloaded character of comic fame and Lou Ferigno illiteracism (is that a word) and made him larger than life in a realistic setting. He expressed emotion and troubled turmoil and conflict with an utterance of "arrrrgh" and "uh!" The texture of skin and the flexing of muscles and the noticable layer of flesh on top of muscle sold me on this character from the get go. The motion capture was top notch. The interaction with real scenarios was very impressive (sans the point Nick Nolte copped a feel of his face...I think that could have been done better, but I couldn't do it any better dontcherknow?). The physics of the character's interaction with bullets and, wow, tank projectiles just had me on the edge of my seat. An the mario throw...bwahahahhahah. And excuse me, but I loved the dogs. I think from the very start Ang Lee and crew did not want to departure from the comic to far and I think this was made very apparent by the editing style of the movie...It was like a big screen comic and I personally loved it!

ROTK nomination for effects is also the person who should be nominated for best actor...Gollum. I know you guys are saying "Duh!" but I still gotta express myself. The evil, the good, the multipersonallity expression of this tormented little demon just sucks you in. I love the way he's done and I don't think he could be improved upon at all...what more could I say about Smeagol that hasn't already been said?

that being said, there's only one way to settle who's gonna get the statuette...let them fight over it! And I'm afraid to say that if Gollum doesn't get ahold of the one ring, Hulk's gonna make jail bait out of him...and that's a scene that I would hope no render farm goes near. Ugh! Can you imagine the sanitation process needed afterwards?

That's my two bits...and remember, it's about the effects, not whether or not we liked the movie. I mean, I nearly suffered a seizure during th Zion battle scene...I litterally swallowed my tongue and convulsed with orgasmic joy at the amount of stuff happening on the screen. Purely awesome...and I can do motion tweens in Flash. But I didn't like the movie that much....I'll still get the DVD to watch that scene over and over and over andonver nad mover chad kroeger red rover red rover send keanu reeves to acting school

ugh

need sleepzzzzzzzz

Joe2003
12-20-2003, 08:04 AM
Too bad you (and others) feel this way about The Hulk...

It still shows on how differently ppl in our industry can look at FX...

No, what it says is how completely ignorant he and others who slam the Hulk are when it comes to effects.

The CG Hulk was the most technically challenging and insanely difficult CG creation ever even attempted. Balk if you want. The fact of this matter is this. No other CG character comes close to be as difficult to pull off as this one.

Creating a seamless, photoreal 12 foot tall green hulk, that runs a hundred miles an hour and leaps 3 miles in a single bound is ridiculously difficult to do. Not to mention that the Hulk has to exist in a completely real world environment that we're all familiar with. There were very few effects other than the hulk himself. He had to interact with real objects and people. The fact that he draws attention to himself by being 12 foot tall and green, only makes matters more difficult. Being green adds another layer of difficulty.

Take Gollum. Although a great CG character, he's not nearly as difficult to create. Why? For one, he's a small, unassuming character that doesn't draw attention to himself. He exists in a fantasy film that has a ton of CG, in addition to existing in a fantasy world that never quite looks completely real. Not even in the same league as the Hulk when it comes to difficulty. That's not meant to diminish what WETA did.

ILM's work in the Hulk was phenomenal. They made the Hulk the way Ang Lee wanted him. They wanted to change a few things, but Ang Lee was adamant. If you want to take a film off the list, take X2 off. The Hulk is a technical marvel.

http://www.hulkmovie.com/images/multimedia/movie/hulk.jpg

Hulk smash puny Oscars!

The most seamless effects I've seen this year are probably from Pirates of the Carribean. T3 also had phenomenal effects, as did Master & Commander. Haven't seen ROTK, but I'm sure it's effects are good too.

but I thought League of Extraordinary Gentlemen had better effects than Master and Commander.,..

You've got to be joking. LXG had some of the worst effects of the year.

P_T
12-20-2003, 09:05 AM
Hulk's CG is Incredible (slight pun intended) except the Facial animation. the angry expression was good but the first time hulk met Betty i didn't know how to interpret his expression.

X2 has some awesome fx like nightcrawler's BAMF and the metal manipulated by magneto.

Pirate's Cg... i think we can agree that the transition between human and zombie in the fighting sequence in and out of the moon light was seamless. the zombies walking underwater was also great.

it'll be interesting to see... but my bet is on ROTK...

Enayla
12-20-2003, 09:22 AM
Whatever else I might say about the Matrix Revolutions (and no, I did not dislike it because it was too difficult to understand. The first flick was intriguing - the two following were Matrix For Dummies (in my humble opinion)), I have to admit that the digital effects are absolutely stunning, and it's a pity that it wasn't nominated for all the hard work that must have gone into that.

However, I do think all the contenders are worthy (not that I can vouch for Peter Pan, of course, since I haven't seen it yet). I'm going to have to root for ROTK, because it's my favourite movie of the lot, but I practically squealed in joy when watching Pirates of the Caribbean, X2 and Master and Commander as well, and I agree that the effects in Hulk are nothing short of flabbergasting - so whichever movie wins, I'll have a little smile on my lips.

Good nominations this year :]

robertkist
12-20-2003, 10:06 AM
Master and Commander should get it, because I can't remember a single scene where I had the thought "this MUST be CG". I really like it when CG doesn't become the main focus of a movie (matrix?) but rather helps to support the story in the best way possible.
If CG stands out and distracts from the story, so that you start thinking of the CG and not the characters while watching the movie, then there is something wrong imho. Thats something that happens far too often for my taste :(

P_T
12-20-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Kwramm
Master and Commander should get it, because I can't remember a single scene where I had the thought "this MUST be CG"...

IMO u can't really say that if some scenes make u say "this MUST be CG" then it's not a good CG.

Majority of CG is used to make things that we think/know is not possible and things that we know don't exist in real life. I remember someone said something like "The only way the audience will know it's CG is coz they know it's not possible" or something like that. I think it was from "the making of" Spiderman.

The Cross
12-20-2003, 10:48 AM
No offence to the Hulk and it's people, But i don't think the Special effects can compare with what it's most hard to beat competetors has.

Pirates had "well over" 15 highend Models for the cursed pirates, having a striking resemblance to the costumed actor, aside from the decaying correct bone anatomy. In the scenes where they seemlessly go inand out of the moon light, they had to be hand animated, and look how great it turned out (Discluding cut scenes) The few steps away from perfect render, worked wonders in giving the zombie's a nice ghostly appearance.


As for what Weta has done, In terms of computer generated Effects, there is no ohter team of prouduction animators and tech-ies that has done what these guy's have, when it come to making you believe what you see is real. Like no other, How many people did you have to convince them that Gollom was not one of Jim Hensons latests ? The Forests and Landscapes were real if that supports the matter of how well intergrated that in particular effect is.

Creating an army of ten thousand Oarks - Honestly what can go up against that ? It was so real.

I think i'll catch todays first showing of Return of the King. I'm confidant that it'll take the throne for best Visual FX, when the Nominees take place.

When taken apart, ROTK would probably have more peices

playmesumch00ns
12-20-2003, 11:17 AM
Well ROTK's probably got it for sure. Can't comment though as I won't have seen it till tonight.

Personally I thought Hulk was great. Some of the poodle shots were photorealistic. Hulk's animation was very well done.

I think the only thing that let it down was that he was big and green. There were several shots in the film where he just didn't look real at all, but then you stpo and think, "what if he was pink not green... yeah he'd probably look pretty good". And the transformation back to banner after hulk goes on the run through the desert was seamless.

While I thoroughly enjoyed POTC, some of the skeleton shots just didn't work for me. The lighting seemed overworked when compared to the live action footage and it just looked very cg. Jonny Depp was great tho!

X2 was extremely well in parts executed, especially that blue one's transformation sequence, and the bamf. But other bits just sucked really badly like the twister sequence. It's like

--"yes we've seen a cg tornado before thanks"
--"yeah but look! there's like 20 of them!"
--"ooh. well done"

Terminator 3 was by far the worst film I've seen ths year, but the effects were incredibly well done. The only thing that let it down was the cg TX. But it was more than made up for by the digital double stuff, some incredible work there. Especially the big punch-up between the terminators, and arnie hanging off that crane. superb.

and RenderFX: If you think people didn't like the Matrix because they were too simple to understand it, you are so way off the mark.

People who idolise the Wachowskis (as you seem to) liked it because they were too simple to understand that it's a pile of stinking tosh.

Serioulsy, if you think that's the bleeding edge of philisophical thinking, you really need to read more.

braam
12-20-2003, 11:50 AM
They are enormously depended on the judge's taste and personalities.

The more judges, the more accurate!!

Gkaine
12-20-2003, 11:56 AM
lord of the rings return of the king all the way!!!! if anything else wins itll be a tragedy.

i agree revolutions deserved at least a nomination over some of those other ones.

unclebob
12-20-2003, 12:08 PM
What is VFX ?
visual effects ?
does that mean only live action with CG characters ?

Well what about Finding Nemo ? or would that ONLY be in the catagory of animation ? The "visual effects" in Nemo were awesome.

bob

RenderFX
12-20-2003, 12:57 PM
Returning to this threads original topic, i think ROTK or Hulk should win, because of their good integration of VFX in the movie, and because it aids ALOT to the storytellling and its not just a non-sence VFX. The VFX of these both movies where made to be able to actually TELL the story (thats why the 1st matrix won a VFX award). If only the effect themselves in the movies where judged, then Episode 1 should have won an Oscar for their technicall "complexity" and massive battles, but they did not (or did they?):p because i think we are judging here how the VFX integrates to the "hole movie" and not just isolate them as separate elements, because thats a lazy thing to do, and i dont think the jury is lazy at all !. If u judge a movie from this "lazy " point of view that lacks of extensive analysis then YOU ARE INDEED MISSING "THE BIG PICTURE"!!!!!

:thumbsup: for ROTK and Hulk!

aurora
12-20-2003, 01:32 PM
It still shows on how differently ppl in our industry can look at FX...

True, in fact I thought about this all night thinking that I was to harsh on the Hulk and the people that worked so long and hard on it. So heres my feelings on the subject. I admit that the Hulk was an immensely huge and daunting creature to bring to the screen. For me the size of the creature just means you have scale issues to deal with as I'm sure PJ will prove to be difficult to deal with with KK. But I still think that Gollum was much more excellently done. I think what really threw it for me with the Hulk was that it appears that he is always disconnected from his scenes where Gollum feels like hes almost always directly there. Granted this is comping work but thats a huge part of the VFX. Case in points the Hulk breaking through the glass, the canyon jumping scenes and others it just never felt to me like he was anything but comped in. While the skin shader(s) for the Hulk was good I felt Gollums was great. While the Hulks animation was done I felt Gollums brought enough trueness that it brought long living emotions.
But the thing that for me throws it for the Hulk was all the VFX are centered on the Hulk, yes oh yes there many other effects elements in the film they just did not live up to the Hulks. I also think that The Matrix while not the best, presented more new techniques over all then the Hulk did.
I liked M&C and put it up high in the list because its hard to distinguish the VFX from the real and is that not where we want all our work to go but now I'm reconsidering of trading places with PotC? There were alot of effet elements in it that looked alot smoother then they did in the Hulks and the Pirates to Zombies that was just pure sweet, especially the complexity of the deck scenes with several zombie pirates or the fighting scenes.
But let me admit I only saw the Hulk on DVD and the others on the big screen. On DVD some of the smoothness is lost and the VFX becomes alittle more appearent, plus the only reason I even watched it was for the VFX so I was rather biased against it. Meaning if I was being questioned as a juror for a trial I would be dismissed. Besides this is just my feable opinion and whats it really worth anyways.

Breinmeester
12-20-2003, 02:19 PM
I thought the vfx of The Hulk were pants, basicly. The weight of the Hulk character was all over the place. Those giant leaps looked like he was shot from a canon rather then jumps with his own strength. Also, the fact that Ang Lee decided to do the breaking walls and thrown around stuff with wires, made the animators have to have the character at a certain place at a certain time (frame). This makes his movements look unnatural. I couldn't believe ILM did that bad a vfx job. Luckily they made up for it on Terminator 3.

I too think the vfx of Matrix: Revolutions were a lot better. I however disagree with RenderFx when he states that its vfx were because of the plot. The vfx for all Matrix episodes were for style mostly and off course the machines had to be CGI. The Wachowski bros grabbed the vfx bag of tricks to make the Matrix films have a real motion manga style. Vfx for plot are in a lot of the other mentioned films: RotK, Hulk, T3, etc, but not mainly in Matrix3. Also, the plot of both Reloaded and Revolutions is a serious lot weaker than the plot of The Matrix (1). The first installment of the trilogy was very fresh and originally cinematographicly, but the last two certainly weren't. I liked them anyway.

Airflow
12-20-2003, 02:59 PM
Im somtimes not sure what people base their opinions of fx on....
I personally as a 2d artist of 10 years and a 3d artist of 7 years, belive the hulk is the pinicle of current sxf, his look was not entirely the same throughought the film, but still its an amazing acheivement...
To say that mocapped animation is " all over the place" is an oxymoron.. it captured from a human being... so the weight cant be off...
The leaps are a direct decendant of the way the Hulk traveled in the comic books... He jumped, flew in mid air like superman, then landed hundreds of miles away... How do you make him look "right" doing this?, give him the legs of a flea, or understand the films heritage?..... the section where he jumps through the glass was amazingly detailed... the first true to life muscle rig ( set up in a fantasy based way) in my opinion. as was the digital tanks and helecopters... and the scene where he smashes out of the military base, into the desert.... I defy anyone to find any kind of muscular simulation in any of the Lotr film, or anywhere else for that matter...
Ps ... as somone else said, its the first time Ive ever seen tendons and veins moving in a cg model.....

rotk or hulk for me....

RenderFX
12-20-2003, 03:10 PM
I totally agree with Airflow :thumbsup:

Laa-Yosh
12-20-2003, 03:33 PM
AFAIK the Hulk was no muscle simulation... it was joint rotation based correctional morphs. There was some secondary motion through a jiggle/flex like system, but neither was that any kind of simulation.
Gollam, the CG horses, trolls, fell beasts mumakils and other creatures in LOTR are all muscle simulation, on the other hand.

The only interesting thing about the VFX Oscars for me is, how in the world was it possible that Independence Day beat Dragonheart? :D

Seriously, it's more about studio lobby and box office... And noone can beat New Line and LOTR in that, as it looks like right now.

erik2003
12-20-2003, 03:36 PM
Basically the Matrix just sucked and even the massive amount of money they spent on animating the 'siege sequence' did not help. It was just totally boring. The effects were old and predictable (though they looked impressive, they were just not original) and they did not support the story. They were just pasted in there.

Master and Commander is in my opinion the best movie of this year. It has great story and the effects are almost invisible, supporting the story and not being the showoff department of some big-dicked guy with too much money to burn.

That said, i have not seen ROTK yet.

James Jacobs
12-20-2003, 03:55 PM
I was suprised that The Matrix wasn't nominated.
Many new, unique, difficult, large effects where created for those films, and for Revolutions to not make it as a nominee, completely took me by suprise.

Their proprietary facial capture technology, the subsurface scattering, floating point rendering pipeline, flocking systems, volumetric explosions etc. or just the "Super Punch" alone, I would have thought would have justified that this film be added as a nominee.

Oh well, I never was any good at predicting what the academy will like.

-jj

sfx
12-20-2003, 04:31 PM
wohaaaa :drool:
master and commander
i realy love that movie, i love that boats
the story is great, the actors, the efects too
but i think that Lord of the Ring will be the winner
:buttrock:

neilyb
12-20-2003, 04:35 PM
ROTK will hopefully win this one, at last they have managed to create mind blowing heart stopping near perfect CG scenes. I wish they had have put as much effort into Two Towers.

Hulk is also a contender as the big green bloke fits perfectly into the film, mainly as he is always CG (see matrix comment). He even beats Gollum for muscle deformation and flexing.

Matrix fell flat, I think, as too often CG characters replaced real actors and the difference is obvious (clothes become cloth simulations..Specularity and lighting differ..etc.) I haven't seen Revolutions but Reloaded was bad enough to put me off. Basically they tried too hard to make something out od nothing (bit like episode 1&2).

WHY DID T3 GET A NOMINATION? Groundbreaking it wasn't and the film sucked almost as much as the Matrix sequels.....er...maybe more! But this isn't about bad films it is about Good SFX! That said, T3 should not have been considered over the Matrix films (if that has been the case?).

Pirates was good but can't match ROTK or Hulk I feel. (fab, fun film though!)

I would give it to WETA for "seat of your pants" stuff!

My2c.

Tellerve
12-20-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by RenderFX

The Wachowsky brothers really put their souls in their work in a way that isnt usual, and that IMO MUST be respected because of their excelent results. We must also not forget that most of the recent movies has been directly influenced by The Matrix style. The mimic of these movies in the movie-industry is undeniable.
I understand that a professional mind can spend hard time trying to understand the "meaning" of the movie because of its technicall complexity (in every aspect), but that doesnt allow that person to make a definitiv statement about a movie of this level.

The brothers may have put their soul into their work, but so did everyone else. People in the cg movie industry don't just put in 7 hour days and go home. They are grueling long days where the artists labor over their work. From the little intern bustin' his butt to the top directors. To insinuate that the others didn't put forth effort and shouldn't be up there is strange to me.

Obviously your a huge fan of the matrix. But as was said before by several people the 2nd and 3rd matrix movie weren't groundbreaking. You mention that movies since have copied the Matrix, and that's true. They copied and still copy Matrix, matrix 1, not 2 and 3. But the Matrix had its hayday at the oscars, and past accomplishments don't make for future successes.

Tellerve

ee01akk2
12-20-2003, 04:56 PM
I have just read every opnion and now HAVE to post my own.

I personally feel that matrix should b there STANDARD. scenes i liked were the computer city moving forwards and shooting all the grenades. BREATH TAKING. I NEED that panorama as a background. The movie is constantly getting bashed by biased people un-interested in sc-fi. I found it amazing to be able to go to the cinema and escape from all the standard sell out movies, with cheesey story lines etc.. I am sad that the trilogy has ended as there is now nothing left for me. films like piratesOTC, peter pan, even LOTR do not have the same essence to them, stylishness and pure reaching for the sky that matrix had. Every one else can settle for mediocracy, i will not.

HULK: TOP billings! the task carried out is incredible, anyone who says differnt does not know what they are talking about. GOLLUM is no where near as good. 13,000 high res texture maps where used for hulk. THIRTEEN THOUSAND. do u understand???? IMAGINE!! not just diffuse and bump let me tell you! and thats just textures. The amount of work on hulk was phenomenal and i would be very pleased to hear it winning the award

character
12-20-2003, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by RenderFX
... Simply put: the matrix movies aint for simple minded people, and i believe that a good reason that they didnt go into competition in the academy awards is that they raised the bar to high and they are way above other conventional special effects that always focus into quantity, and not in quality.


you make it sound like the matrix didn't have any huge action sequences that didn't involve stamped character models which according to your ideas about the industry, reflect a sense of quantity over quality. the matrix trilogy was good, well, except for the second one, but the graphics werent impressive at all *to me* except for the third one where some of the cg stuff actually looked real. the first two looked completely done on the computer. as for it not being on the list, who knows. maybe it's because of the generic looking cg or maybe it didn't get submitted in time. it's like the tootsie pop riddle. "the world may never know"

btw, i've included some images to support my statements about the matrix. according to you, i'm getting that lotr was nothing but huge battle sequences, but looks at these and tell me the matrix isn't the same thing:

http://stu.aii.edu/~gr281/matrix-comp.jpg

EDIT: PS. last samurai should be nominated. i didn't see any CG in that movie. didn't realize there was any until i read an article this (http://vfxworld.com/?sa=adv&code=319b255d&atype=articles&id=1947) article the other day. definitely a top contender.

the sparky
12-20-2003, 05:22 PM
The Matrix trilogy tries to be deep, but really it isn't. It's kind of like poetry. There is some poetry that is really good, but then there is other poetry that has lines that seem deep, but if you actually examine them, you'll find that they aren't deep. I think that the first Matrix had a lot of moments that had good insights, but the second and third just fell apart.

VFX:
I think that the Matrix Revolutions was too busy. My eyes got tired while I was watching. I found it very hard to focus on the action sometimes.

Pirates was amazing. The skeletons were immediatly recognizable as their character.

I just saw ROTK last night, and I would have to say that it deserves this. It was beautiful, and the effects only served to back up the story. That's the way it should always be, I think. The battle scenes were easier for me to focus on than the ones in Revolutions.

softdistortion
12-20-2003, 05:25 PM
Hulk> wins for Coolest Jumps and Tank throwing>
I mean, there just isn't any competiton here. I haven't seen them , but I'll bet no one in Master and Commander of ROTK jumps 3 miles or throws tanks around....hey I could be wrong though. :-)

leet
12-20-2003, 05:52 PM
Well, I thought I would chime in here...

I think so much of having to judge something like this is having a clear and finite criteria in order to compare these films, and their fx. I mean are they based on technical innovations? perfect execution? or based on being applicable and forwarding the story of the movie they are in? or is it just fanboy fare, and which ever you think is coolest?

Personally I think that if the fx don't drive the story or what not, they are in fact non successful. As soon as a viewer starts to acknowladge what he or she is seeing is an effect, and analize how it was done, or how cool it looked... it drives attention away from the movie itself. It then becomes a distraction. And thus defeating the purpose of the effect being there in the first place.

With that said, the film that gets my vote is ROTK, with master commander in a close second. And the main reason ROTK gets my vote is because of Gollum. The fact that a cg character can emote and deliver such a convincing performance while still being an intrigal part of the film defines a successful effect in my eyes. My main problem with the Hulk, aside from the wieght issues (those jumps were sorry in my opinion) and his lack of acting ability, really made him non-believable. You are always aware that he is just this giant green man that was comped in. Never does he really rouse any emotion from the audiance.
I think its sheer briliance, just the fact that people actually have thought about Gollum as an actual contender for an acting nod... noone says this about the HUlk.

alexyork
12-20-2003, 06:04 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

All the films listed (and indeed any "blockbuster" movie these days) don't impress me or thrill me in any way.

It's a bit of a shame that VFX are only attributed/used in these big effects movies... everyone knows Hulk and Matrix (rev and reloaded) were boring and immeroable), but here they are, winning awards for their VFX.

Sure, the effects created in these movies were pretty stunning, but one day I hope to see VFX being used subtly in the films that really matter - films like Requiem For A Dream, Fear.X, Pi etc.

Subtlety is something the VFX industry knows nothing about these days - it's all car chases, explosions and huge crowds etc. (with the exception of snippets from various movies).

VFX should be a partnership and a tool to enhance the viewing pleasure of a movie, not replace it.

Without turning this into a whole discussion, my general feeling is that it would be nice to see some more subtle FX work in "blockbuster" movies making it into awards such as this.

All credit to the studios for their hard work, though.

I'm a CG lover myself, so isn't it ironic that my favourite film is Pi, which is black and white and has absolutely 0 VFX in it?

skyfinch
12-20-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by leet

I think its sheer briliance, just the fact that people actually have thought about Gollum as an actual contender for an acting nod... noone says this about the HUlk.


I think it's safe to say, Hulk and Gollum are two totally different characters. Hulk's character wasn't exactly created with acting awards in mind. He suffers from "George the Animal Steel syndrome". And as you know, George won't be bringing home any oscars anytime soon.

neilyb
12-20-2003, 06:38 PM
Lets remember folks the Hulk started life as a cartoon character, I think in the film they have stuck to this beautifully. The hulk is meant to be big and green, nothing more!

I agree that CG should be there to improve on a film, not become it. BUT, the ROTK calls for this to happen, unless you remove the parts of the book which involve thousandsof Orcs and men fighting, castles falling, trees walking and huge beasts bearing mercinaries from the east......go on, tell us how to do that without maing it CG? Personally I found it very believable and I normally sit through films wondering how long it took to render etc.. This time I sat enthralled with my heart in my mouth!

Gollum is an integral part of a complex plot and has lots of dialogue, which is SUPERBLY acted and backed up by excellent CG!

I really must get my hands on the 5 disk DVD edition!

jschleifer
12-20-2003, 07:19 PM
Originally posted by Airflow

To say that mocapped animation is " all over the place" is an oxymoron.. it captured from a human being... so the weight cant be off...

just wanted to say.. unless they were mocapping a 15 foot tall huge green guy with muscles the size of the hulk.. it's quite easy for the weight to be off when using mocap.

eirenicon
12-20-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by jschleifer
unless they were mocapping a 15 foot tall huge green guy with muscles the size of the hulk..

They probably got CDS (http://www.timothyd.com/host/hulk-cds.jpg) to do the mocap.

RenderFX
12-20-2003, 07:34 PM
Please be aware that my opinion are strictly objective, and based on professional criteria.
People cant say a movie is "bad" because they didnt like, u must have an objective and professional criteria to state this.

character.-

btw, i've included some images to support my statements about the matrix. according to you, i'm getting that lotr was nothing but huge battle sequences, but looks at these and tell me the matrix isn't the same thing:

You cant deny that when the wachowsky brothers do something, they do it with style. And ofcourse they couldnt bypass a good battle sequence, since they have IMO included every element that a good and complete movie must have:

1.- An original story with a strong philosophical meaning with a nice lovestory (starting
from the 1st one) that evolved along the sequels (thats why most people rejected the sequels,
because they expected to see the same story and not an evolved one)

2.-One of the best martial art fight sequences ever made

3.-Coolest highway race in the movie industry (IMO)

4.-Coolest sex scene, wich is BTW very artistical

5.-A huge epic battle, that has nothing to envy other massive battles, and that btw contributes with visual elegance

6.-A refined editing (wich IMO looks like Kurosawas and Eisensteins editing style) and an almost flawless respect for the continuity of the shots (the editing enhanced in matrix 2 and 3)

7.-An innovative and stylized audiovisual language (wich apparently no one takes into account)

In conclusion, matrix is a generous and complete trilogy that satisfys even the most demanding professional minds, but sadly doesnt satisfy nor reach simple minds that prefers shallow movies with no purpose to contribute other than 2 hours of evasion and escapism and of course entertainment, wich is also respectable.
They are 2 kind of movies:
1.- The kind of movie that u can watch one time and fully understand it at first glance (wich is very boring and shallow) and is usually based on or adapted on other peoples books or scripts thats makes you u walk "empty" into the theater to then return to leave the theater in an empty state (but happy because u entertained urself or because u watched a movie based in a book).
And theres a 2nd kind of movie that is usually written by the directors themselves (like Luc Besson) that tends to wake up new concepts and ideas that makes the audience put more effort to understand this new kind of language that ends with interesting discussions like the one we are having in this thread right now about the Matrix trilogy.

Finally, no one has the final word about VFX and audiovisual language (and certainly not even me), because it has been always evolving and improving with movies like The Matrix and other audiovisual products like the video clips that we are so used to see, but that in their time where hardly criticised and not accepted as a valid audiovisual language.

P.D.
I find nothing wrong in making movies for entertainment purposes only, and i certainly find that movies like LOTR are amazing and inspiring at the same time in terms of CG and production "grandure", but they dont contribuit in modern audiovisual language, certain movies does (like Citizen Kane and the Hitchcock movies did), others dont.

This is my final statement about cinema by now, and i could digg further into details concerning good filmmaking or the classical movies influence in the film industry along time, but I wont because Im sure I will find endless amount of people that dont want to spend their time analyzing movies in a deep manner and that prefers to watch a movie and forget it or crit it with no objective nor professional criteria.

I think we belong to a new generation of filmmakers and VFX creators, and that in one moment we will have to contribute with our knowledges, effort and analytical professionalism just like other filmmakers are doing it right now.

AJ
12-20-2003, 07:38 PM
I can't believe they snubbed Dumb and Dumberer

:surprised

igorstshirts
12-20-2003, 07:43 PM
LOTR, Matrix, Hulk. In that order.:wavey:

leet
12-20-2003, 08:05 PM
Originally posted by RenderFX
Please be aware that my opinion are strictly objective, and based on professional criteria.
People cant say a movie is "bad" because they didnt like, u must have an objective and professional criteria to state this.

I agree with what you are saying here, yet your breakdown of the Matrix is quite subjective. All your descriptions are personnal opinions and you dont give evidence to support your argument other wise. You cant just say "coolest sex scene, which by the way is very artistic" and leave it at that...whilst trying to make an argument about being objective.

This is I thought a debate about the visual effects not whether or not the Matrix trilogy is a good movie. But since we are on that wagon, I have to say that there is nothing new in terms of philosophy, story telling or otherwise. There is nothing profound about what they are saying... its just a dumbed down version of what people before them have written about. Joseph Cambell... Plato.
Another thing that plagues the matrix movies is the atrocious dialogue. Something that haunts modern hollywood film making. When Neo has to flat out say something through dialogue that should have been inherantly understood through "good filmaking" is a prime example of bad scriptwriting. Many modern movies bring on revisionist who try to fix movies by having characters tell you what is happening... just illustrates the films basic flaws and the directors inability to utilize the medium to its fullest potential.

And in your post you make it sound like your comparing the matrix films to citizen cane and hitchcock films... please dont do that.. thats like blasphemy.
now with that said... I dont think the films are bad films... but they are just not as groundbreaking people claim them to be, they are just the same rhetoric like all other hollywood films.

cheers

hackie
12-20-2003, 08:18 PM
no way!!

where is the MATRIX revolutions?
wow i'm surprised Matrix wasnt nominated.
then..my second pick is LOTR !! no doubt.

ji revolutions

marchermann
12-20-2003, 08:22 PM
Okay, I followed - and enjoyed - this thread for quite some time now. And while I must say, RenderFX, that you bring up some good points I feel I have to comment on your statements now.

Originally posted by RenderFX
Please be aware that my opinion are strictly objective, and based on professional criteria.
This is a BIG contradiction since it's in the nature of an opinion to be subjective. There is no objective opinion! When you state that your's is, I can only find this rather presumptous.

Originally posted by RenderFX
People cant say a movie is "bad" because they didnt like, u must have an objective and professional criteria to state this.

First off, please don't tell people what they're not allowed to do.

I think that a film can be "objectively" (i.e. technically? storywise?) well made and still not reach you, even bore or annoy you (like Pulp Fiction did with me). And then you're entitled to say, it's a bad film.

Also have a look at your list: They are opinions, not objective criteria, and not even supported by concrete examples. "Coolest Sex Scene"? I mean... come on? The interwoven triple sex scene in Trainspotting hat to be the best one. No arguing about that. It's my objective opinion ;) - see what I mean?

Okay, I just had to let this out.

I don't want to turn this into a film theory thread (because we would have to first debate the pupose of films to then find "objective criteria" and so on).

Would you care to give some examples for Eisensteinian montage style in Matrix? I couldn't make this connection, but find the idea intriguing.


About this year's VFX:
I haven't seen any LOTR (Call me stupid, but I'm still too afraid to swap my imagination for Peter Jackson's). But my favourite CG moments were the Battle of Zion in Matrix Revolutions, seeing Hulk close-up, the nuclear explosions in T3 (and the scene where that crane(car) stops so abruptly and flips over) and the duel in that cave in Pirates otC (going back and forth between humans and skeletons).

Marc

marchermann
12-20-2003, 08:24 PM
Dang it, leet,

seems you were typing a lot faster than I was ;)

Marc

vfx fan
12-20-2003, 08:34 PM
Well, I wouldn't really call "The Matrix" original. It had many cliched lines and its philosophical meaning was used, in my opinion, more successfully in the underrated "Tron," one of my all-time favorite movies, and I'm sure it's been used before that. Sincerely, nothing's original -- at least, not anymore.

I'm not a fan of any of the "Matrix" films, but the work they have created in the sequels at least deserved to be among the seven finalists rather than "X2: X-Men United," "Pirates of the Caribbean," or even "Terminator 3" (nothing mindblowing about those three). I have a hunch that they were scrapped for political reasons.

I don't really think "X2" has much of a chance simply because it's a sequel to a film that wasn't nominated for its fx (of course, it made it in the long list). But then again, maybe I'm paranoid. :shrug:

As for "The Lord of the Rings," I respect WETA's work a lot (especially in the third film), but in the last two of years, the Oscar winners have been getting far too predictable. I would be satisfied if another movie took its place in the final three. Don't hate me. :)

neilyb
12-20-2003, 10:44 PM
Maybe it's just me but I found the Matrix story line similar to that of Dune....the chosen one and all that!
I wonder which martial arts sequence is supposed to be the best ever?
Jeff Lew stated in an interview (the making of on MTV) that they wanted to "Create something nobody could copy, as they had done the SFX of the first film". This is not the basis on which to create a film, only great SFX which (IN MY OPINION) fail miserably due to their trying way too hard to beat the first film!

Windex
12-20-2003, 10:47 PM
Leigh, :D i'm really really really really really really exploding here.
i can't hold it in anymore.
can i please say something?

btw i can even do shape tweens in flash.

Lifthz
12-20-2003, 10:53 PM
It is blashphemy that BOTH Matrix:Reloaded AND Revolutions were not nominated... BLASHPHEMY!...

Reloaded:

1. Burley Brawl.

2. Highway Chase: agent jumps on car

3. Highway Chase: truck explosion

Revolutions:

1. Hammer's return trip to Zion...

2. Entire Zion battle...

3. almost entire Neo vs Smith battle...

This is folly!

Wait, is this even real... I must be friggin dreaming.

eliseu gouveia
12-21-2003, 03:19 AM
Eliseu Gouveias Official List of VFX Nominations

- Matrix Reloaded
- Matrix Revolutions
- LoTR - Return of the King
- Hulk
- Pirates of the Caribbean
- X2: X-Men United
- Terminator 3

the sparky
12-21-2003, 04:27 AM
Originally posted by RenderFX
Please be aware that my opinion are strictly objective, and based on professional criteria.

Making statements like that doesn't make anyone believe you. If your actions reflected that, it wouldn't be so hard to beleive, but you tend to make statements and not back them up with facts.

Oh, and what "professional criteria" did you use for "coolest sex scene ever"? Never mind, I don't want to know that...

KolbyJukes
12-21-2003, 06:15 AM
For me it's

LOTR:ROTK
HULK
MATRIX: reloaded + revolutions (i can't decide between them)

-Kol.

ehulser
12-21-2003, 08:07 AM
The thing about the Matrix movies, about they're philosophy, is that it is not entirely groundbreaking. Its an adaptation of various philosphies. I don't know who said it, it was earlier in the post somewhere and I'm too lazy to go find it, that there is nothing original - not anymore. This is true and it isn't. There is nothing truley "original" in that you cannot trace its roots, because everything new is based on combinations of what we have already learned, it is an original combination perhaps, but still rooted in previous knowledge. I had not noticed the similarites between the Matrix and Tron, but now that it was mentioned, they are similar. There is much reference to asian culture in the movies, from the martial arts to the "one" to the circular flow...very reminiscent of Taoism and Buddhism. In terms of Objective and Subjective, it is hard if not impossible to be entirely objective, and in either case and as has already been stated, the defences for your objective opinion RenderFX are quite flawed and subjective. Also, I do not think that is the required list for a good movie....I think that is the list that makes the Matrix sequals a good movie for you and by no means need to be followed by any other movies. For reference, I loved the story of the Matrix, I loved the series themselves, and I loved pretty much all the movies that made the cut...I am very easy to please.
In terms of the VFX (as this is what the post is really about):

ehulser
12-21-2003, 08:18 AM
Matrix - did have amazing VFX. I was stunned by most of it, however it still did not feel "new" to me....it seemed like I was watching any sci-fi robot movie...I think the reason movies like the hulk and lord of the rings takes its place is because of the complexity it takes to recreate a character in 3d and not a machine.

Lord of the Rings - its work is derived from a fantasy environment that can only be recreated in CG. To do this, one must create an environment that is believeable while fantastical at the same time which is hard to do. Its work overall is breathtaking in my opinion. The battle scripts created are mindblowing, the AI to generate it would be insane. Gollum is a person..well, creature...the idea of CG and Animation is to bring life to one's creation and not a single moment did I sit and really realize that Gollum was not real (even though, yeah I know he is not real). I think they should not win however, because I feel they've already won the oscar for this movie....twice in fact...this was essentially one large movie broke into 3 parts, released 3 different years....I think that while I still love the movie, it should take a seat to some others

Hulk - "I don't like how he's big and green...he feels like a comic book character...If he was pink, yeah maybe..." (Sorry, paraphrasing peoples complaints) Given what ILM had to work with, being that Ang Lee wanted to keep the feel of a comic book, and yeah, the character is big and green in the comic book....I'd say they did a hell of a job. I give them the oscar.

Pirates - Amazing integration from CG to Real Life...I was truly taken away by this. Oh yeah, Johnny Depp is a pimp...but either way, the scope and scale of Hulk I think overshadows this one.

The others - I have not seen, some I did not want to, some I did not have time for, but I'm sure there is a reason for them being here

My 2 cents...

Gramm
12-21-2003, 09:18 AM
While I appreciate that this is a CG forum (and lord knows I love CG!), Visual Effects is WAY more than 3D characters.

So far the biggest discussions seem to be that the "Matrix wasn't nominated!?" and "Gollum vs. Hulk". I think the Hulk looked very impressive, Gollum was amazing and, yes, the Matrix should have been nominated.

BUT, that not what I want to talk about because... if you've got this far you're sick of it. As am I.


I believe LOTR should get it, but not just because Gollum was stunning or the Massive Engine (huge crowds) is astounding. They are. We've established that.

Look at the Hobbits and the Dwarves for a start. John Rhys-Davies is the tallest lead cast member, yet he and the other average height actors appear half their size on screen. VFX.
The amazingly detailed minitures (or "bigatures") for locations such as Minas Tirath, intigrated with CG and live footage. VFX.
The digital compositing of live actors over places that don't even exist, like the shire. VFX.
Being able to arbitrarily replace an actor with a CG double at close camera range and have it un-noticable. VFX.

While WETA could win on Gollum alone, and probably will, there's way more to RotK than just CG.


But that's just my "objective opinion".
-Gramm

playmesumch00ns
12-21-2003, 10:24 AM
I love the way the matrix producers always bang on about how their effects have been copied.

What exactly did they do that no-one did before?

Wire removal? been done

Digital doubles? been done

Bullet time? been done done done

Honestly the way they bigged it up probably helped everyone feel so incredibly disappointed by the film.

OK say ROTK last night. Very impressed overall. 3D was excellent, especially the big armoured troll things. 2D I thought was a bit shoddy inplaces, really obvious matte lines, especially when integrating live action with the bigiatures, but then I doubt I could do any better

Tarscher
12-21-2003, 12:10 PM
The main reason you people find the Matrix should not be nominated is because its influence and inovative character

Since when is influence and state of the art CG a synonime? We all agree that Lord of the Rings will probably win the Oscar but in fact LoftR is nothing more then the bigger and better story. Don't get me wrong, I really am amazed by what LoftR looks like...

If you ask me the Matrix has all what LoftR has but with that little extra that makes the Matrix my favorite CG movie. The hoghway scene in movie 2 is brilliant. I thinks the 2 collapsing trucks is one of the greatest moments in CG history (along wih Gollem of course). The scene where Neo fights the hundreds of Smiths is increadible too.

The reason the Matrix is missing on the list is clearly because the jury didn't like the movie. Big mistake...

Burn that list
regards
Stijn

Lifthz
12-21-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by ehulser
Matrix - did have amazing VFX. I was stunned by most of it, however it still did not feel "new" to me....it seemed like I was watching any sci-fi robot movie...I think the reason movies like the hulk and lord of the rings takes its place is because of the complexity it takes to recreate a character in 3d and not a machine.

Am I the only one that noticed the digital Neo and Smith, especially at the end of Revolutions?... especially at the point of that big punch?

Also, really the complexity, numbers and level of detail COMBINED in many of the scenes in the Matrix Revolutions especially is rivaled probably only by the battle of Minas Tirith in LOTR:TROTK because I know an estimated 250,000 of Suaron's forces came into that Battle (even tough I haven't had a chance to see the movie yet). Revolutions Zion siege had estimated 750,000 sentinals.

TYLER DURDEN
12-21-2003, 02:52 PM
I had a look over this list and it all make alot of sense apart from pan which i,ve not see yet

the hulk every body seem harp on about the hulk him self but remmeber mosts the edits are VFX effects as well and i,ve never seen a movie that was put together in such a beautiful and fluid manner . it's the only movie that truly stands out above the other in this area .

If you read the critera for the award you will see that it,s about aiding the story telling process so who's got the best cgi figures or the most amazing effect is not the way it,s judged.

i think the final three will end up

hulk
master+commander
ROTK

i would be very please if any these movies won as they are all
truly wonderful of the VFX front.

if M+C wins (weta did this some of this also so they won,t lose out to much)

But why no matrix movies well either they did,nt submit it in time yes it can happen.

the votes were split over the two movies and they never had enough for the short list.

or they just these movie did,nt forfill the critera for the this award
fully enough to justify nomination.

the last of which i suspect is true

it's about aiding the story telling process not about how clever the effects were thats why they have a night of technical award as well.

if you have any problems with these nominations have a look at the at the rules and it make alot more sense.

Being a film maker my self i really hope Ang lee pulls it off using vfx during the editing process in such a creative way has really open many door for future productions. and a big thanks to ilm for excuting it so well..

Good luck and godspeed

Lifthz
12-21-2003, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by ehulser
The thing about the Matrix movies, about they're philosophy, is that it is not entirely groundbreaking. Its an adaptation of various philosphies. I don't know who said it, it was earlier in the post somewhere and I'm too lazy to go find it, that there is nothing original - not anymore. This is true and it isn't. There is nothing truley "original" in that you cannot trace its roots, because everything new is based on combinations of what we have already learned, it is an original combination perhaps, but still rooted in previous knowledge. I had not noticed the similarites between the Matrix and Tron, but now that it was mentioned, they are similar. There is much reference to asian culture in the movies, from the martial arts to the "one" to the circular flow...very reminiscent of Taoism and Buddhism. In terms of Objective and Subjective, it is hard if not impossible to be entirely objective, and in either case and as has already been stated, the defences for your objective opinion RenderFX are quite flawed and subjective. Also, I do not think that is the required list for a good movie....I think that is the list that makes the Matrix sequals a good movie for you and by no means need to be followed by any other movies. For reference, I loved the story of the Matrix, I loved the series themselves, and I loved pretty much all the movies that made the cut...I am very easy to please.
In terms of the VFX (as this is what the post is really about):

This could be said for anything, inclouding even Tolkein's great works... but that that LOTR any less great? :rolleyes:

I think the Matrix was a great story in many ways and on topic... the CG effects were certainly the TOP 2 if not the BEST this year, IMO... (I haven't had a chance to see ROTK yet though)

Lifthz
12-21-2003, 05:48 PM
Burley Brawl Hugo model compared to real Hugo image...

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_10.jpg

Mocop of Hugo weaving facial expressions, applied to CG model...
http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_07.jpg

Sorry, but besides Gollum I haven't seen anything anywhere this real looking...

dudeguy
12-21-2003, 05:56 PM
^^^ I was going to post that, to prove a point too, Cheers :thumbsup:

I can't believe I actually read this whole thread, I'm out of town, on holidays, at a computer where I'm unable to do any 3d, so I got nothing better to do I guess...

Originally posted by RenderFX
I cant believe u guys say that about the Matrix movies!!!!
I understand that a large amount of people around the world did not understand the first Matrix, and when they thought they understood the 1st movie then the sequel was released with a much more mindblowing story and a innovative cinematographic language. Simply put: the matrix movies aint for simple minded people, and i believe that a good reason that they didnt go into competition in the academy awards is that they raised the bar to high and they are way above other conventional special effects that always focus into quantity, and not in quality.
For example, Weta says : "Ok, lets make outstanding VFX by making a realistic CG character (gollum) and a massive battle of elfes and orks or wathever that looks like a crowdy war, because quantity equals quality for us".
In the other hand the Wachowsky brothers, John Gaeta and the ESC team put all their effort to produce an innovate class of cinematography, a high quality cinema, that achieves very elegant VFXs and a high amount of unpredictable surprises. They found the way to do an other kind of cinema, and that definetly leaves other conventional movies out of competition. Im not saying that the LOTR movies nor Hulk or other movies in this genre are bad, im just saying that they dont innovate in anything, they all look the same, and the only thing they do to try to impress the audience is to enlarge the "quantity" of the conventional VFX that we can see in any generic high-budget hollywood movie. IMO, the Matrix movies places 1st in my favorite movie list, and LOTR places second (yes, i really like the LOTR movies, but Matrix is better for several reasons :P) They are two ways u can criticise a movie: with a simple "i liked the movie" or "i didnt like it" opinion, or with an objective and professional opinion.

The "i liked the movie" or "i didnt like it" opinion is very subjective, and i really think that its just what a simple-minded or non-professional person would say about the Matrix.

In the other hand, if u digg further in, and analyze and understand the various components that a movie is made off like the storyline, the tempo, what kind of audiovisual language is used and the purpose of making the movie and VFXs, only then an opinion is worthy to pay attention because of its objective and professional analysis. And if u do so, then u will realize that ur standing in front of one of the most complex and elaborated movies ever made, and when im sayng "most complex" im referring in terms of braincells that u kill to make a decent and elegant movie in every aspect, wich is not just using the old technique of use-everything-that-has-been-done-before because it WILL sell.
The Wachowsky brothers really put their souls in their work in a way that isnt usual, and that IMO MUST be respected because of their excelent results. We must also not forget that most of the recent movies has been directly influenced by The Matrix style. The mimic of these movies in the movie-industry is undeniable.
I understand that a professional mind can spend hard time trying to understand the "meaning" of the movie because of its technicall complexity (in every aspect), but that doesnt allow that person to make a definitiv statement about a movie of this level. theres a serious error in your professional judgement when you state that "The editing and pace were incredibly bad", Ive been a Avid editor since 5 years, and i have noticed that one of that movies strongest points is the almost flawless editing and continuity that the shots has in that movie. I think the BIG evidence is the movie itself, im just clarifying an obvious breakthrough that the matrix had in the film industry.
Go ahead and analyze it frame by frame!!! Ofcourse i value Wetas exceptional effort they putted in the LOTR movies, i really admire their work and find it very inspiring. But i dont think that they innnovate somehow in the audiovisual language, wich i think is very relevant in a movie. The massive battles are really impressive, and they really raise the movies epic greatness. And dont get so surprised about my age, theres a lot of young and talented people around here that is very qualified to make their own professional statements about movie making. In conclusion, matrix is a generous and complete trilogy that satisfys even the most demanding professional minds, but sadly doesnt satisfy nor reach simple minds that prefers shallow movies with no purpose to contribute other than 2 hours of evasion and escapism and of course entertainment, wich is also respectable.
They are 2 kind of movies:
1.- The kind of movie that u can watch one time and fully understand it at first glance (wich is very boring and shallow) and is usually based on or adapted on other peoples books or scripts thats makes you u walk "empty" into the theater to then return to leave the theater in an empty state (but happy because u entertained urself or because u watched a movie based in a book).
And theres a 2nd kind of movie that is usually written by the directors themselves (like Luc Besson) that tends to wake up new concepts and ideas that makes the audience put more effort to understand this new kind of language that ends with interesting discussions like the one we are having in this thread right now about the Matrix trilogy.

Finally, no one has the final word about VFX and audiovisual language (and certainly not even me), because it has been always evolving and improving with movies like The Matrix and other audiovisual products like the video clips that we are so used to see, but that in their time where hardly criticised and not accepted as a valid audiovisual language.

P.D.
I find nothing wrong in making movies for entertainment purposes only, and i certainly find that movies like LOTR are amazing and inspiring at the same time in terms of CG and production "grandure", but they dont contribuit in modern audiovisual language, certain movies does (like Citizen Kane and the Hitchcock movies did), others dont.

This is my final statement about cinema by now, and i could digg further into details concerning good filmmaking or the classical movies influence in the film industry along time, but I wont because Im sure I will find endless amount of people that dont want to spend their time analyzing movies in a deep manner and that prefers to watch a movie and forget it or crit it with no objective nor professional criteria.

I think we belong to a new generation of filmmakers and VFX creators, and that in one moment we will have to contribute with our knowledges, effort and analytical professionalism just like other filmmakers are doing it right now. RenderFx, well said, I agree with you 100%

Obviously some of this is a matter of taste, the dispute for best VFX is a close one, my personal list of current faves is

1 Matrix Revolutions
2 Matrix Reloaded
3 LOTR TTT (my favorite of the LOTR series, Gollum instantly blew my mind and the battle sequences between the Orcs and Humans and the Orcs and Ents were nothing short of spectacular.
4 LOTR ROTK
5 X2

Hulk was such a horrible movie in so many aspects, from plot to characters to pacing to editing, etc, I had a hard time sitting through it, by the end, any magic that may have been in the CG was completely lost to me, this movie ranks up with Batman & Robin for my all time worst, both Ang Lee and Joel Shumacher don't deserve to direct traffic, let alone blockbuster movies.

In my professional opinion, Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions are currently the pinnacle of VFX.

ROTK was amazing, no doubt, but Revolutions was complete sensory overload, I was on the edge of my seat, eyes wide open, jaw hanging, drooling for a majority of the movie, no offense at all to the amazing job all the artists at WETA did on LOTR, but I didn't get that at all from ROTK, I found myself saying(in my head, don't talk during movies) "wow" a lot during ROTK, but not "HOLY F*^!!#&*@!^@*O#! SH$^#*&!" like I did during Revolutions.

What is the Matrix?

The best.

Laa-Yosh
12-21-2003, 05:57 PM
Too bad that it hasn't looked a tiny bit as good in the movies as on this image. We still haven't got a clue about how this could have happened... but it's a sad fact.

Neil
12-21-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by playmesumch00ns
I love the way the matrix producers always bang on about how their effects have been copied.

What exactly did they do that no-one did before?

Wire removal? been done

Digital doubles? been done

Bullet time? been done done done

Honestly the way they bigged it up probably helped everyone feel so incredibly disappointed by the film.

OK say ROTK last night. Very impressed overall. 3D was excellent, especially the big armoured troll things. 2D I thought was a bit shoddy inplaces, really obvious matte lines, especially when integrating live action with the bigiatures, but then I doubt I could do any better

By this logic, what did the other nominated movies do that hasn't been done before?


And if you guys wanna talk about VFX nominations, please stop talking about the plots. They're not gonna get nominated on that aspect, and inversely they should not NOT be nominated because of a plot flaw.

siquier
12-21-2003, 06:17 PM
Matrix is a great film to children... not so much to adults.

Lifthz
12-21-2003, 06:30 PM
Originally posted by Laa-Yosh
Too bad that it hasn't looked a tiny bit as good in the movies as on this image. We still haven't got a clue about how this could have happened... but it's a sad fact.

http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_11.jpg

During the Burley Brawl, at a lot of moments it really visually looked like the real life counterparts, in fact I think most people could only tell because they KNEW the characters were doing stuff that is impossible even on wires. This is much more impressive than imaginative characters in any of the other films nominated, of course with the exception of Gollum.

I think they should've done more closeups during Burley Brawl, but they did one in the final battle in Revolutions and it looked amazing.

The background is all 100% VFX.

leet
12-21-2003, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Neil
And if you guys wanna talk about VFX nominations, please stop talking about the plots. They're not gonna get nominated on that aspect, and inversely they should not NOT be nominated because of a plot flaw.

Well, thats true... I think this thread has become to much on whether or not the Matrix films are good or not.
And I apologize for my previous post perpetuating the Matrix flame war discussion.

TYLER DURDEN
12-21-2003, 07:12 PM
I can see alot of people miss the point of the award as now people are posting images from the film look how good this is

here is the facts people see the visual effects award as hey gollum was amazing it must win or the motorway seq from reloaded was amazing.

bottom line it's not judged that way.

here are the actual rules ftom The visual effects committee

Visual Effects Branch Executive Committee and on the basis of:
(a) consideration of the contribution the visual effects make to the overall production and
(b) the artistry, skill and fidelity with which the visual illusions are achieved

check out the word contribution

you have to think about this from a film making point of not as technical exercise.

yes reloaded/revolution had great effects but do the effect enhance the narrative as they did in the matrix

no they don,t

and you can can see that
"artistry, skill and fidelity with which the visual illusions are achieved"

is a secondary consideration

think about it in reverse if you take out all the effects from a film would the story stand up or not.

if the effects are the story then the film is not really going to get out the gate with the judges

all the best

anieves
12-21-2003, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by leif3d
How can the Matrix not be there?...and master and commander is?.......that shows the inacuracy of the oscars....dumb asses...that makes me angry...I'm not asking for an Oscar for the Matrix as a Movie ...but it has revolutionized the industry in a way that many nominees in that list have been inspired.....just plain dumb...they lose credibility that way....

The guy in charge of sending the submission sent the package via US postal service and not FedEx. He got fierd.

Lifthz
12-21-2003, 07:55 PM
Originally posted by TYLER DURDEN
I can see alot of people miss the point of the award as now people are posting images from the film look how good this is

here is the facts people see the visual effects award as hey gollum was amazing it must win or the motorway seq from reloaded was amazing.

bottom line it's not judged that way.

here are the actual rules ftom The visual effects committee

Visual Effects Branch Executive Committee and on the basis of:
(a) consideration of the contribution the visual effects make to the overall production and
(b) the artistry, skill and fidelity with which the visual illusions are achieved

check out the word contribution

you have to think about this from a film making point of not as technical exercise.

yes reloaded/revolution had great effects but do the effect enhance the narrative as they did in the matrix

no they don,t

and you can can see that
"artistry, skill and fidelity with which the visual illusions are achieved"

is a secondary consideration

think about it in reverse if you take out all the effects from a film would the story stand up or not.

if the effects are the story then the film is not really going to get out the gate with the judges

all the best

Are you kidding me? So that entire Siege of Zion sequence in conjunction with the return of the Hammer, which was almost 100% VFX consisting of truly beyond any scale numbers, extremely high quality models, animation etc. was not a contribution to the narration of which the situation was already explained for the entire beginning half of the movie?... :surprised

How about Neo's journey to the Machine City which also contains an overwhelming amount of high quality VFX? Oh, that was not a major part of the story, was it? :hmm:

Sorry, but the effects are definitely supporting the story, and actually it's supporting it much moreso than any of the other nominees, with the exception fo ROTK.

BRUTICUS
12-21-2003, 08:05 PM
the muscle deformations in the hulk are amazing enough to take the VFX. Yes Gollum conveys some fine acting skills and a wide array of expressive facial poses. But the twitches and muscles in the Hulk were in my opinion more groundbreaking in terms of CG. However this is a visual effects award. What exactly makes something "the best in visual effects".

I would say somethings ability to imitate reality. The Hulk does stand out as being a rendered character, more so than Gollum.

I think the Matrix are far more impressive movies than Lord of the Rings. The war inside Zion is probably the craziest CG scene i've ever seen. However Lord of the Ringsis still more realistic in appearance than the Matrix.

neilyb
12-21-2003, 08:48 PM
As mentioned above the FX must convey the story.....Matrix along with Starwars have run low on actual story and are out to make films that look good but are somewhat lacking in story. As Jeff Lew said when interviewed, they were out to make uncopyable FX....that doesn't mean they were out to compliment the story!

Laa-Yosh
12-21-2003, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Lifthz
http://whatisthematrix.warnerbros.com/vfx/rl_img/vfx_image_11.jpg

I'm sorry but practicaly everyone I've spoken with found the digital doubles far too unconvincing, and some of the shots they were in had absolutely nothing that would've been impossible to film with a real camera.


The background is all 100% VFX.

Which is pretty cool, because that is not noticeable at all. But the CG Neo is quite obviously fake. I can't exactly tell why - the lack of lifelike motion? the unrealistic cloth movement? the shading (despite the measured BDRF)? But it just screams "I'm fake!" to me, even in the quicktime trailer where the compression should hide the small details... so it must be the whole big picture that's wrong already.

Something more to chew on before I jump this topic: Gollum was obviously CG too, as he cannot exist in the real world - yet everyone was able to suspend disbelief and just enjoy the show...

Lifthz
12-21-2003, 09:25 PM
^^^

I DO agree with you, and that's why I always say with the exception of Gollum, but honestly... compared to the other films, I think Matrix is a lot more convincing. Only Gollum, only Gollum. :)

And I think the major reason why Burley Brawl looked fake was because it was supposed to look fake... it's the Matrix ( mostly the animations that is). :p They are simulating unrealistic levels of power produced by human melee attacks which effects the outcomes of gravity etc., this is in context with the story. However, that did indeed work against the whole image looking believable...

vlad
12-21-2003, 10:07 PM
Written by RenderFX :

"In conclusion, matrix is a generous and complete trilogy that satisfys even the most demanding professional minds, but sadly doesnt satisfy nor reach simple minds that prefers shallow movies with no purpose to contribute other than 2 hours of evasion and escapism and of course entertainment, wich is also respectable."

Funny, that exactly what I thought after seing the last instalment of the trilogy : shallow movies with no purpose to contribute other than 2 hours of evasion and escapism and of course entertainment

You talk about deep philosophy. Who, why, where? Must have missed something. Please explain. Anyway, how deep can Keanu be? (Even with a good script)

Also, its the first time I hear about "demanding professionnal minds". What the heck could that be?

Mikademius
12-21-2003, 10:11 PM
By this point I wish I had read alot about every movie listed. I wish I had read every article there was and watched every making of several times so I could easily back up my statements. But I haven't so therefore I shouldn't say much at all. Everything I say here will be personal oppinions (witch everyone is entitled to have).

First of all, I'm impressed that some can actually use the word BAD in the same sentance as they are critizising(spelling?) these movies. None of these movies have ANY BAD CG in them. How can some say that ILM did BAD CG in the hulk. They are recreating a cartoon character and compositing him in a real enviroment. I'd also like to point out that mr. Hulk alone did not do all the CG. I mean, look at the commance2 choppers. They weren't even finished in real life. The tankmodels are 100% top noth.

LOTR:ROTK... I'm sorry, but I haven't seen it yet, but I believe that Weta will NOT dissapoint me here. I believe that movie will give me a blast and I will have to see it over and over again. But as I haven't seen it, I can't include it in this discussion.

VFX is not a characterbased Oscar so stop comparing the Hulk and Gollum.

Now about the Matrix rev... The incredible ammount of VFX there diserves more respect I think. There are two norwegians that have been working on it. I have spoken with one of them (Bard Anders Kasin-who did alot of the work on the final Neo/Smith Battle, also responsible for alot of the 10 sec punch).All you see here is CG, Every GodDamn thing.(except the first steps before it starts) And Oystein Larsen who did some amazing tech-work on the film doesn't understand why it's not listed. If WB couldn't deliver in time, wouldn't he know? I'll ask him if this is what happened. Try to imagine what Matrix would be without these effects. Do the effects back up the story... YES. They couldn't have told it without these effects. So I don't understand why m3 isn't in the list.

Masters & Commanders was very boring, but the effects here are stunning. I didn't even spend a second to check if anything was CG because it looked so believable. Even though I didn't like the movie, I see the AMAZING VFX here. Incredible Work.

Pirates... Also amazing. The modeling, the incredible compositing/integration, everything looks silkysmooth.

Haven't seen all of X men 2. Only the White House scene. And if the rest of the movie is like that... Well, I'm impressed...

I sure am glad I'm not in the jury.

merry X-mas no mather who wins.

TYLER DURDEN
12-21-2003, 11:39 PM
Originally posted by Lifthz
Are you kidding me? So that entire Siege of Zion sequence in conjunction with the return of the Hammer, which was almost 100% VFX consisting of truly beyond any scale numbers, extremely high quality models, animation etc. was not a contribution to the narration of which the situation was already explained for the entire beginning half of the movie?... :surprised

How about Neo's journey to the Machine City which also contains an overwhelming amount of high quality VFX? Oh, that was not a major part of the story, was it? :hmm:

Sorry, but the effects are definitely supporting the story, and actually it's supporting it much moreso than any of the other nominees, with the exception fo ROTK.


I going to try not to get drawn in to this matrix thing basically it,s not been nominated


but oh allow me to retort..:)

someone earlier posted don,t talk about the plots of films they are nothing to do with the VFX award they are every thing to do with the award

lets take neo journey to the machine city

ok if neo just walk thru a door and appeared in the machine city and trinty was killed by an agent the momment she step out we would be in excatly the same place in the plot .so the way the journey was made is not key narrative you could get there any way so long as the result is the same. ok extra things we learn is yes there is sun above the clouds but this we know pretty much that already.

but to get there we must have a massive long fight sequence with squillion things but are all those fx helping the plot. or are they just eye candy

lets look at another winner from another year, Forest gump this a good one Lt dans legs. The effects for his legs removal were execllent it adds a whole new dimesion to the movie and the charactor it was subtle but changes every thing and added a major element to the films texture.

gump is a really excellent example of what a good vfx movie should be.But take away the effects and the core story would,nt suffer a great deal


Why did the orignal matrix win well the bullet time effect showed use of neos power to control his enviroment and when used it taught us visually that he was becoming something else.Helping in us understand the altetered realtiy that neo found him self in thus aiding the narrative

The judges alway seem to go for movies that bind the effects with plot

ok enough of the matrix its not in,t so it can,t win it


in the words agent smith

"Mr oscar we,ve missed you"

JohnD
12-22-2003, 12:15 AM
Well, a toss up between ROTK and Hulk. Sorry, but I'm one of those who did like the Hulk movie and I'm not about to jump ship on ILM just because the writers behind the new Star Wars suck.

santiago
12-22-2003, 12:23 AM
I remember seeing the Reloaded trailer for the first time, when they show the freeway scene with Smith landing on the hood of a car... I remember saying "darn, that looked fake". And that was the trailer mind you.
It was like I was sympthasizing with the Matrix FX crew for trying to get a great and difficult fx shot done, and almost reachin it but not there quite yet.

I guess matrix fans would say something like "yeah but the story is so cool, who cares about it looking completely real?"

But then if you look at Gollum's performance in ROTK, and imagine what it would be like if it lacked realism in the same way Matrix lacked in realism, I think the whole movie would be hurt, it's just not the same.

For people to not even think about fx when watching a movie, and just remain focused on seeing what happens, as opposed to how it was made at the studio, there is probably a certain technical level that must be reached, it's like stepping onto the next step, a certain step, in a staircase of fx quality, from there up it's all good.


I'm not surprised about that list, because I don't think the Oscars is a definite list of the best of the best. And I think that within the arena of visual FX, there are so many things that you can be the best in, for example, it could be simply the highest quality visual effects, regardless of how it contributes to the film, or whatever other criteria. It could be the most innovative effects, or the most creative effects, or the most complex effects, right now I can't think of every other point of view that could claim to choose the best of the best.

The Oscars awards the "Best Visual Effects" in their show, but in reality they seem to be awarding something more specific, which apparently is causing confusion, because the award title is not accurate enough to make people understand what they are awarding.
The irony of this is that studios winninf that award will boast in anyway way they want, because after all, the award does say "Best Visual Effects", so that could mean anything to anyone, and becaomes a false propaganda for those studios, becuase they were in reality chosen with specific criteria, not because they were simply the best of the best.


By the way, I think it's cowardly to insult people in an online forum, if somebody thinks somebody else is stupid, he should be a man and tell him in the face. Courage isn't just a movie thing you know.

vlad
12-22-2003, 01:59 AM
Well, you have to be ready for anything with the American Academy. Some of you might remember way back in 1982 (was 14 at the time), seeing all my illusions vanished as the (so called) Academy gave the Oscar for best visual effects to E.T. over Poltergeist and, get this, Blade Runner. (Which imo remains one of the best sci-fi flick ever put on screen). In that respect, we might see T3 win.:surprised

malducin
12-22-2003, 02:37 AM
Actually Tyler Durden has it more or less right. The rules by which the VFX Branch chooses the 7 bakeoff finalists and the 3 nominees, and the Academy rules for choosing the VFX winner, are ambiguous enough to make the story factor (especially choosing the winner) relevant. They can certainly be interpreted to say "choose the best film with VFX" and not "choose the film with best VFX", 2 very different things.

Despite that (my disagreement point) the VFX Branch usually chooses outstanding VFX efforts despite the contribution to story. You could certainly complain or argue for about that in lots of nominees like Hollow Man, Starship Troopers, Armageddon, Poletrgeist 2, etc. Sometimes the achievement is very overwhelming. Matrix not being nominated has probably something to do with what PixelShader mentioned in the General Discussion thread.

but in reality they seem to be awarding something more specific, which apparently is causing confusion, because the award title is not accurate enough to make people understand what they are awarding.

Exactly and that goes with my previous point. There is the fact that while the pros in the VFX Branch choose the bakeoff finalists and the 3 nominees, it's the whole Academy membership (actors, producers, movie moguls, screenwriters, etc.) who pick the winners. How much can they really appreciate it. There is not even a guarantee they watch the nominees. How many old geezers do you think saw Hollow Man and voted for it on its VFX merits?

I'm not surprised about that list, because I don't think the Oscars is a definite list of the best of the best. And I think that within the arena of visual FX, there are so many things that you can be the best in,

Well as I mention the nomiantion is done by peers. There is also the VES awards, also by peers, and the BAFTA VFX winners are selected by a panel of pros. Also having coverage in Cinefex and CGW and presenting at SIGGRAPH (sketches, papers, etc.) is usually a good indication of quality and superb work.

Nakalay
12-22-2003, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by malducin
"choose the best film with VFX" and not "choose the film with best VFX", 2 very different things.
Sure, but ROTK will win either way. :wise:

AndHolzmeister
12-22-2003, 06:49 AM
well about hulk and gollum and the possibility of hulk to win the oscar.

Imagine if you were an academy guy who would give a vote on them. you receive a reel to see the achievements of each studio.

You see hulk, wow great CG character, very well integrated with the real environment, very well animated, very beliavable, great secondary motion, anda all that is needed in a very good CG character...

You see ROTK, bout gollum- wow great CG character, very well integrated with the real environment, very well animated, very beliavable, great secondary motion, anda all that is needed in a very good CG character... (just the same as hulk but in my opinion, much better achieved than the green giant)
plus Tons of other CG and needed effects to tell the story, tons of real sfx, like pirotecnics, armors, weapons, much better (in my opinion) composition work than hulk that looks like rubber for me in a couple of shots, and looks a bit off the environment in most of the film. well i think hulk has no chance, becouse the amount of work is incredible little compared to ROTK, but im not saying that was easy or not a lot o work that is obviouly the contrary. But you cannot compare with ROTK in the amount of work needed to achieve both. Plus ROTK has a much more beliavable character than hulk, that is Gollum. Hey, the first one is green and big, thats why he is not that beliavable, well, gollum does not look normal guy at all for me, but WETA made it beliavable. I think ILM has no part in that, but the director.

atzfratz
12-22-2003, 11:00 AM
Originally posted by RenderFX
The subject that we are discussing here are the movies that where recently nominated, and when i was referring myself that they "all look the same" i meant that they use the old school of putting a large quantity of before-seen VFX, wich is a lazy way to make a movie. They just improve the quantity, they lack of elegance, and they dont innovate anything.

And i dont think my reply was nether "ignorant" nor "dumb".

There is nothing new about the effects of matrix. They just took the look from cool manga movies like "ghost in the shell" to hollywood. Just look at the movie. I mean was i the only person that felt that the Endfight between Neo and Agent smith was a real big Dragonball Z ripoff. That was realy cheap.

Dont know if that was mentioned before, didn't want to read through all the pages but i had to comment on that.

AlexeiGritsenko
12-22-2003, 11:01 AM
well as for me, matrix part 1,2,3 is the best cg film
and lord of rings is the second - because that is encient battle only... with some magic parts ofcourse:))))))
but is oscar award such important think?
many great pictures have no oscars:)))

sorry for my bad english

Breinmeester
12-22-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by RenderFX
Please be aware that my opinion are strictly objective, and based on professional criteria.

No it's not. Neither should it be: an opinion is only worth something when it's subjective.

Originally posted by RenderFX
1.- An original story with a strong philosophical meaning with a nice lovestory (starting
from the 1st one) that evolved along the sequels (thats why most people rejected the sequels,
because they expected to see the same story and not an evolved one)

2.-One of the best martial art fight sequences ever made

3.-Coolest highway race in the movie industry (IMO)

4.-Coolest sex scene, wich is BTW very artistical

5.-A huge epic battle, that has nothing to envy other massive battles, and that btw contributes with visual elegance

6.-A refined editing (wich IMO looks like Kurosawas and Eisensteins editing style) and an almost flawless respect for the continuity of the shots (the editing enhanced in matrix 2 and 3)

7.-An innovative and stylized audiovisual language (wich apparently no one takes into account)

There is no model to which a film must suffice in order to be a good film. Some models have been made, yes, but filmmaking is not a construction, it's creation.

Again: the audiovisual language was new and fresh in Matrix 1, not 2 and 3. Off course it's theirs to use whenever they please. The plot in Matrix 1 cut deep, but Reloaded set up a lot of storylines that popped like a balloon because Revolutions couldn't fullfill what Reloaded set up.

Saying that the editing has an Eisenstein style is idiotic. Firstly it contradicts your opinion that their audiovisual style is new. Secondly, ALL editing steel from the great out of the film history.

Originally posted by RenderFX
In conclusion, matrix is a generous and complete trilogy that satisfys even the most demanding professional minds, but sadly doesnt satisfy nor reach simple minds that prefers shallow movies with no purpose to contribute other than 2 hours of evasion and escapism and of course entertainment, wich is also respectable.

All narritive were made to entertain. I too like films that have a strong philosophical premise. It's cool to find films that contain both a strong vision and an intriging plot, but film has always been about entertainment mainly. I like The Matrix for it's philisophical thread, but that doesn't make it nescesarrily a better film than, say, Terminator 3, just different. And remember: we are talking about VFX here!!

Originally posted by RenderFX
the most demanding professional minds

Please, stop using the word professional. Level of professionalism has nothing to do with the value of an opinion.


EDIT: RotK has my vote, btw. Gollem is amazing!! The skin shaders, the muscle deformation, the skin rolling, wow!:eek: But what really was amazing was the character itself. It's quite a difficult character to deliver: it has multiple personalities and it has to envoke both disgust and pity from the audience. It is most certainly groundbraking how this was delivered! Without a doubt the most convincing CGI character ever,, which makes him a milestone and an example for coming times. Very cool character animation and brilliant interaction with the other actors.
The other fx shots were cool too, but Gollem is what'll reel in the Oscar.

Breinmeester
12-22-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Airflow on the animation of The Hulk:
To say that mocapped animation is " all over the place" is an oxymoron.. it captured from a human being... so the weight cant be off...

That's like saying the animation of a bowling ball couldn't be off because it was rotoscoped from footage of a tennisball.

playmesumch00ns
12-22-2003, 01:38 PM
Originally posted by atzfratz
I mean was i the only person that felt that the Endfight between Neo and Agent smith was a real big Dragonball Z ripoff.

I know! And if they were going to rip it off, they could at least have had them chucking fireballs at each other...

atzfratz
12-22-2003, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by playmesumch00ns
I know! And if they were going to rip it off, they could at least have had them chucking fireballs at each other...

Somewhat i was really waiting for someone to scream : "KAAAME HAAAAME HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA"

malducin
12-22-2003, 04:00 PM
To say that mocapped animation is " all over the place" is an oxymoron

That's not the only point, but a lot of the animation on the Hulk was traditionally keyframed. Just because there are video showing Ang Lee being mocapped doesn't mean everything was. Many sequences combined both including the tank attack sequence.

Imagine if you were an academy guy who would give a vote on them. you receive a reel to see the achievements of each studio ... (stuuf about judging characters)

Now this is a real oxymoron!!! You think Academy memebrs know anything about shaders, rendring or the principles of animation?!?!

But you cannot compare with ROTK in the amount of work needed to achieve both.

Never underestimate the stupidity of the Academy ;-). While I would bet ROTK will win, they don't care about the amount of work. Gladiator won just a few years ago with something like 88 shots against 2 movies that had over 400 VFX shots and tons of R&D.

plus Tons of other CG and needed effects to tell the story, tons of real sfx, like pirotecnics, armors, weapons,

Well armors and weapons don't count towards VFX, that would be something like Costume and Art Direction awards. The Hulk also had tons of practgical VFX (Michael Lantieri), pyro work, mioniatures, etc. Check the Cinefex article.

If you check the history of the awards lately it seems the voting goes for what is more popular, with what the memebrs like best, not just VFX mind you.

A much better argument is that ROTK will will be because 2 reasons: it's the most liked nominee and the overall work is both innovative and superbly executed for the most part, IMHO ;-).

Airflow
12-22-2003, 04:31 PM
Well it would depend on what you basing your opinion of "Correct Motion Capture data on"... I mean have you seen a 20 foot muscle bould guy in a mocap suit latly.
All things concidered I feel the weight of the hulk was not all over the place as you say, I have watched the dvd about 20 times now and cant see what you mean, so unles you point out specifics, we cant really argue the point....

Lots has been said about weta, and I agree with most of the points on Gollum... He is very well intergrated Into his enviroment, skin shaders, and animation... But I have yet to see a battle like the dog fight, or even some of the scenes from TTT come from the matrix... For me 72000 zooming objects do not push the boundaries of fx, nor do 72000 clone troopers or orcs...
But when I see totaly artificial humans created and rendered where a real human could not replace the cg, I am impressed..
The work done on the matrix 2 and 3 was probably a hard undertaking, but I feel the producers were trying too hard to please... The burly brawl in my opinion was the weakest effect in the trilogy, due to the poor rigging and animation...
Its the old addage... A cg T-rex looks real because you have never seen one... But 300 guys in suits fighting.... Just did not do it for me... I think it was the lack of cloth wrinkles myself...

aurora
12-22-2003, 04:53 PM
OK I thought I might have been to critical of the Hulk so I rented it again and watched it. As to hopefully prevent, yeah right, starting the flame war up again I'll just agree with something malducin stated about ROTK taking it over The Hulk.
and the overall work is both innovative and superbly executed for the most part
To me the full flow of the VFX was more overall well done in ROTK and M&C then in The Hulk. Just my opinion.
Now if I was to start flaming again I'd say poly counts of Hulk vs Gollum excuse me Godzilla had how many more then the Hulk and look where it got it. Buit I won't say anything about that:D

malducin
12-22-2003, 05:10 PM
Well my comment had more to do about fow the VFX pros (the VFX Branch and then the VFX membership) would vote to select both the 7 bake-off finalists and then the 3 nominees at the Bake-Off. The Academy at large follows their own "twisted" logic ;-). Some films are more about innovation, other about execution, etc.

If anything now we have the VES awards which more or less works like other guilds, say when the actgors, direcotrs, editors, cinematographers, etc. guilds vote on their own awards before the Oscars. It's all peer based. I feel the 7 nominees this year were worthy but also feel shoched that none of the Matrix sequels was also there (a couple years ago there were actually 8 finalists as there was a tie in the slection).

The problem with discussions like this is you barely see well thought out arguments, say for example in shot X in film Y you could see blue screen fringe, or the shadows in the CG elements didn't match the live action plate, etc. Most of it comes to it looks good ir bad to me, etc. which many times descend into the flame wars coupled with arguing about plot and the like which have no relevance in this discussion. It's also funny how arguments are subverted according to film. Film X might be criticized for the huge volume of VFX, since you didn't like a movie, but at the same time say that film Y is desserving because the amount of work. Sure there are differences but many times this argument is just used plainly and naively without any arguments.

I say lets toast to the great work we saw this year, and toast for what we'll come next year.

Breinmeester
12-22-2003, 05:53 PM
Originally posted by Airflow
All things concidered I feel the weight of the hulk was not all over the place as you say, I have watched the dvd about 20 times now and cant see what you mean, so unles you point out specifics, we cant really argue the point....

I thought I pointed out two things specificly:

Originally posted by Breinmeester
The weight of the Hulk character was all over the place. Those giant leaps looked like he was shot from a canon rather then jumps with his own strength. Also, the fact that Ang Lee decided to do the breaking walls and thrown around stuff with wires, made the animators have to have the character at a certain place at a certain time (frame). This makes his movements look unnatural.

Anyway, that's just how it felt to me. The character just didn't convince me. Also, I feel The Hulk is best in its beginning and slides down as the movie progresses. I really loved the decoupage of the opening sequence and liked the sense of drama in the middle piece. The action sequences killed the dramatic plotline, I felt. The part when he suddenly moves underneath asphalt I found flat out ridiculious. Maybe it's not really Ang Lee's genre. I liked The Icestorm a lot. Even more than Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon.

TYLER DURDEN
12-22-2003, 07:24 PM
This as turned out to be a hugely amusing thread with the way that people view how vfx oscars are nominated and how people actually see what the vfx content of the movie means.

Hear is a really simply formula for the Vfx Oscars.

1) is it generally regarded by the critics/peers as a good film (don,t even think about the effects here).

if yes goto 2

2) did the effects enhance the story flow and narrative.And not become the story (george!!)

if yes goto 3

3) Are the effects well excuted by the VFX companies

then your in with a chance.


Even the the VFX oscar is about the story and ultimatly thats all a films are about.

gollum ,hulk night crawler yeah great but a small part of a much greater view that the judges must take.

Bad films don,t win VFX oscars period even if they have the best effects on the planet.

It,s not about shaders and key frame animation 1,squillion troops marching on a 90 mile high fortress. 190 cars speeding down a free way in the best chase scence ever ever ever.

yeah that all really cool but not winning material here.



there is more to VFX then just VFX .

Lifthz
12-23-2003, 12:11 AM
Originally posted by santiago
I remember seeing the Reloaded trailer for the first time, when they show the freeway scene with Smith landing on the hood of a car... I remember saying "darn, that looked fake". And that was the trailer mind you.
It was like I was sympthasizing with the Matrix FX crew for trying to get a great and difficult fx shot done, and almost reachin it but not there quite yet.

I guess matrix fans would say something like "yeah but the story is so cool, who cares about it looking completely real?"

But then if you look at Gollum's performance in ROTK, and imagine what it would be like if it lacked realism in the same way Matrix lacked in realism, I think the whole movie would be hurt, it's just not the same.

For people to not even think about fx when watching a movie, and just remain focused on seeing what happens, as opposed to how it was made at the studio, there is probably a certain technical level that must be reached, it's like stepping onto the next step, a certain step, in a staircase of fx quality, from there up it's all good.


I'm not surprised about that list, because I don't think the Oscars is a definite list of the best of the best. And I think that within the arena of visual FX, there are so many things that you can be the best in, for example, it could be simply the highest quality visual effects, regardless of how it contributes to the film, or whatever other criteria. It could be the most innovative effects, or the most creative effects, or the most complex effects, right now I can't think of every other point of view that could claim to choose the best of the best.

The Oscars awards the "Best Visual Effects" in their show, but in reality they seem to be awarding something more specific, which apparently is causing confusion, because the award title is not accurate enough to make people understand what they are awarding.
The irony of this is that studios winninf that award will boast in anyway way they want, because after all, the award does say "Best Visual Effects", so that could mean anything to anyone, and becaomes a false propaganda for those studios, becuase they were in reality chosen with specific criteria, not because they were simply the best of the best.


By the way, I think it's cowardly to insult people in an online forum, if somebody thinks somebody else is stupid, he should be a man and tell him in the face. Courage isn't just a movie thing you know.

What looked fake? The car effects, or the animation of the agents (who appears to be a normal human being) stomping down on a car with no problem...


NEWFLASH: IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE!...:hmm: I don't know how you could say it looks "fake"... it's supposed to be fake, it is in the Matrix.

It is easier for the makers of Gollum to animation Gollum in a realistic way... because GUESS WHAT... he is a realistical character in terms of in relation to the laws of physics, strength etc., he does nothing that is impossible in real life in terms of physical abilities.

AndHolzmeister
12-23-2003, 12:52 AM
Malducin

Now this is a real oxymoron!!! You think Academy memebrs know anything about shaders, rendring or the principles of animation?!?!


No, i really didnt say that if you know how to read, im just saying that in a 15 minutes reel, hulk has no more than himself to show, and 15 minutes is too long for that. WETA has so much more material to show off that 15 minutes is too short to show off what they have done... read the post again my friend. Yeah righ, there ar tanks and helicopters... bla bla bla... but that is easy to do in this market... hulk yes, this was an achievement, but gollum is a much greater achievement...

NightSky
12-23-2003, 01:38 AM
I'm not sure if this is relavent to the current argument, I mean discussion :beer: , but does anyone remember if Star Wars: Episode I or II got a VFX Oscar??

malducin
12-23-2003, 01:54 AM
No, neither of the prequels won the Oscar, first lost to the Matrix, second to LOTR.

Tyler Durden, you seem to point what the problem with technical categories are (thank goodness we have guild awards). But if story is all that matter then shouldn't we get rid of most categories, just gave best picture, director and screenplays? Each aspect should be judged independently and on their merits. Why not then do we take points off of great stories with crappy production values, maybe all VFX should be done with sock puppets and models on strings as they dont matter ;-). yeah I know what you are saying, the selection of actual winners does go that way.

No, i really didnt say that if you know how to read,

wow I'm being called illiterate :-P. Maybe you didn't express you thoughts right ;-). You did say that Academy members would be able to appreciate secondary motion, which only the minority would.

im just saying that in a 15 minutes reel, hulk has no more than himself to show, and 15 minutes is too long for that. WETA has so much more material to show off that 15 minutes is too short to show off what they have done

Maybe you should read the Cinefex coverage ;-). yes Hulk nis the main attraction but there is certainly more than that in the the film (400+ shots) and certainly enough to fill a 15 min. reel. I guess the argument or quantity over quality need not apply here ;-).

eah righ, there ar tanks and helicopters... bla bla bla... but that is easy to do in this market... hulk yes, this was an achievement, but gollum is a much greater achievement

In what way was a greater achievement, just take your word for it? Lets split the vote and say they were both equal achievements. And you assesment is very naive. Just as we had tanks and helicopters before so you could say the same thing with huge armies and battles, huge fantastical creatures, fantasy vistas via matte paintings and miniatures. It's not like LOTR has the exclusive rights on these.

At least give some props to the other finalists.

leet
12-23-2003, 02:29 AM
Originally posted by Lifthz
NEWFLASH: IT DOESN'T HAPPEN IN REAL LIFE!...:hmm: I don't know how you could say it looks "fake"... it's supposed to be fake, it is in the Matrix.

It is easier for the makers of Gollum to animation Gollum in a realistic way... because GUESS WHAT... he is a realistical character in terms of in relation to the laws of physics, strength etc., he does nothing that is impossible in real life in terms of physical abilities.

Your comparing visual fx shots of characters in the Matrix which are supposed to look real... To a completely fantasy character like Gollum. Despite what you may think, I beleive the models and characters in the Matrix are supposed to look like the actors themselves. not like plastic puppets.
Also claiming that the Matrix is successful because of the fakeness !?!?! which is it for you Matrix fanboys? First its amazing... then when confronted with criticism your argument becomes that its great because it made to look faulty.

And are you referring to Gollums reality as a flaw... it sounds like a shot at the makers for using motion capture. Which, from what I understand there were many shots that needed to be a blend of both key and mocap. His introduction in the Two Towers has him scaling down the face of cliff... mocap imposibilities.

I agree with Tyler Durden, in that the fx should support the story. Its like movie 101... story is the most important thing. Its like, you can polish a piece of crap and make it look all pretty, but in the end all you have is a pretty piece of poop.
When a movie revolves around FX as the main drive to attract an audiance... the film maker really has his(or her) priorities in a mix.

Jackdeth
12-23-2003, 02:39 AM
The bottom line is Matrix, Hulk and LOTR are all amazing in so many ways....

In the end, I would say its almost a tie between Matrix and LOTR, but LOTR being the winner.

Its a shame that Matrix didn't get nominated. I would go as far as to call it BS. I understand that after all of the huffing and puffing and bragging they did....it kinda blew up in thier face when the movie turned out flat. So now all of the nerds are mad at them and this is thier punishment..... Not fair...but maybe they brought it apon themselves...


In the end its a popularity contest that Matrix lost, and LOTR came out the winner. It almost has very little to do with the quality of the FXs, but more do to with the quality of the movie... Again, not fair...but thats how it is.

Look at Hollowman...amazing FXs, crappy movie......big loser at the oscars...



ps. I hope John Geta doesn't drink himself to death over this....

AndHolzmeister
12-23-2003, 04:26 AM
In what way was a greater achievement, just take your word for it? Lets split the vote and say they were both equal achievements. And you assesment is very naive. Just as we had tanks and helicopters before so you could say the same thing with huge armies and battles, huge fantastical creatures, fantasy vistas via matte paintings and miniatures. It's not like LOTR has the exclusive rights on these.

Ho common Malducin,

Im not saying Hulk was bad in anyway. I really liked it, but the green guy just looks a bit off in some shots, not very beliveable, just like the neo and smith did in the matrix, like you can see it is a rendered CG character in several shots, that almost does not happen with gollum, thats why I said gollum was a greater achievement. He is believable, and as far as he is not human, there are people in the audience that never thought that was a CG character, (like my father and my girlfriend) they are not like great cg experts (lol). They just watched the movie and they simply didnt think "hey this gollum guy is wierd, like fake or not believable, it must be some kind of sfx" ! they just watched the film and in the end when i said hey this gollum guy is a cg animated character, they were like, WOW... did not noticed that. But you can see, he is a creature that cannot be played by a humar actor, and they do not care about it. But the Hulk really seams to be CG. thats not my word, this topic has many people saying that, and other forums talked about that alot when the film was released. thats all.
I mean, ILM rulez, but WETA did a greater job this time. And im talking about quantity WITH extremely quality. NOT quantity over quality.

jeva
12-23-2003, 01:25 PM
regarding the freshness of the Matrix movies .. maybe I like the same things that the W brothers do, wathced the same movies, animes, read the same books and comix ... but I think there is not too much new in those movies, especially the last too ... Those movies had great VFX elements at some points, but as many of you pointed it out, they were mostly just eyecandy ... luckily it's not me, who has to decide :)

cheerz,

j

malducin
12-23-2003, 01:58 PM
I was just yanking your chain, see all those smilies in there. I swear they should teach some netiquette un schools today ;-). Actually rereading my post my tone seems rather harsh, I apologize, Holidays put me in a bad mood anyways.

Besides most people don't know about CG and VFX. If they could look at renders with a regular skin shader or in black and white you would definately see how uncanny he looks. It's just that green is such an unnatuiral color. Just because you know something is CG doesn't mean it loks CG. A lot of that ccuts in the psychology pf perception (some good SIGGRAPH course notes on that). He did look a bit off in several shots, mostly the far away ones but also some like when he screams after seeing his father in the first transformation). Yes personally, LOR ROTK is one of the most impressive things I've seen this year.

My main point is that some people give blanket statements as the gospel. Fanboys saying VFX of film Y are perfect with no reason when sometimes you could easily point out the counterexamples. I like details and reasoned arguments myself but that's just me ;-).

CGTalk Moderation
01-16-2006, 11:00 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.