PDA

View Full Version : 7 finalists for the 2005 VFX Oscar


malducin
12-17-2005, 12:10 AM
2005 VFX Competitors (http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2005/05.12.16b.html)

"Batman Begins"
"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"
"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"
"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"
"King Kong"
"Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith"
"War of the Worlds"

Congratulations and good luck to all.

chadtheartist
12-17-2005, 12:50 AM
I'm kind of torn between Star Wars and War of the Worlds. King Kong was cool, but almost too CG. I'd say the same for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. Narnia was done rather well too, but I don't see it winning, even though I think Aslan was by far one of the best feats of CG I've seen (Yes, even over Kong because of the style differences). Goblet of Fire was OK as well, but IMO it really can't compete with the other movies that are more heavily CG.

I'd say Star Wars will win best VFX.

As far as story goes, I'd say Batman. :D

yog
12-17-2005, 01:00 AM
King Kong was cool, but almost too CG. I'd say the same for Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.
I'd say Star Wars will win best VFX.I'm surprised you say this, I thout Star Wars III had so much (overly saturated) CG it was more cartoon than live action film.
I would nominate Star Wars to aknowledge the hard work and technical achievement of ILM, but I certainly wouldn't let them win mainly because of (IMHO) horrible art direction.

abonora
12-17-2005, 01:02 AM
I would say war of the worlds for best..... heavy on quantity and with really good quality and seamless effects, but we will see... it is a tough call.

E_Moelzer
12-17-2005, 01:21 AM
Charly and the Chocolate Factory had more practical effects than one might think.
I had a blast when during watching the making off, they showed how they trained the squirrels for that nut- cracking scene. Hillarious!

CU
Elmar

ntmonkey
12-17-2005, 01:22 AM
Hate to be the judge on this one.

War of the World or Batman Begins for me. Whew, good luck to all.

peace,

Lu

michaeli
12-17-2005, 01:22 AM
I would say war of the worlds for best..... heavy on quantity and with really good quality and seamless effects, but we will see... it is a tough call.

Totally agreed, haven't seen the Kong movie yet but the composition in the trailer is too CG and the matte painting is too obivious, on the contrary, the CG of War of world is very good that you feel it so real. :cool:

Bonedaddy
12-17-2005, 01:48 AM
I'm betting WotW. The Academy's got a lot of old-school dudes in there, they'll dig the invisible stuff over Kong or Star Wars.

gunslingerblack
12-17-2005, 05:53 AM
i hope narnia, it's the only time ever i've been choked up over seeing something on screen that literally suspended my disbelief.

KolbyJukes
12-17-2005, 05:56 AM
I'm betting on WotW or Kong.

What a great year for effects movies.

Romero
12-17-2005, 06:58 AM
Such high calibre movies next year, Id say War of the Worlds because of the realism. Haven't seen Kong yet and I was definetly impressed with Potter, Star Wars I think was a bit over done and Batman was great but not as impressive as War of..

-Vormav-
12-17-2005, 07:09 AM
I'd agree with War of the Worlds. Extremely well done shots, especially considering the timeframe that the entire film was done in.
Still need to see King Kong before I can say anything on that...

Sagii
12-17-2005, 07:27 AM
Wow this is going to be one hard year of voting... I havent seen all the movies listed here.. I am going to see Kong tomorrow, but so far
I think Naria's Aslan was INCREDIBLE, first time a CG character has made me cry... War of the Worlds had some crazy cool effects too...
hard year indeed!

NightCrawler3d
12-17-2005, 08:29 AM
cool ......
king kong for me though i havent seen it
:)

mattepntr
12-17-2005, 04:10 PM
I wish quality of the work was the only deciding factor here...

If it were, I'd give it to "War of the Worlds" hands down. Astounding work.

But "Sith" has a shot, not because the work as a whole is that great,
but they might award it because of the achievement of the whole trilogy,
sort of why "Return of the King" got so many Oscars.
"Batman Begins" was probably the most respected film of the group, popular
with people who don't consider themselves comic book or CG nerds.
And "King Kong" might get it because of the size of the whole thing.

Yeah, it's a tough year.

rakmaya
12-17-2005, 05:23 PM
Whooo tough decision. But I will go for War of the Worlds. There is a part of me sliding towards King Kong and Star Wars. WoW was really awesome and the direction and characters were much realistic than Star Wars.

kevj
12-17-2005, 06:02 PM
Charly and the Chocolate Factory had more practical effects than one might think.
I had a blast when during watching the making off, they showed how they trained the squirrels for that nut- cracking scene. Hillarious!

CU
Elmar


Errrrrrrr?, the whole sequence was vitually all CG except on a few close ups of real squirels.

SheepFactory
12-17-2005, 06:31 PM
As much as I liked WotW , it has nothing over Kong. Kong was lightyears ahead of all the other films in terms of vfx achievement imo.

SpiralFace
12-17-2005, 06:38 PM
WoW and Starwars for me as well....So far. I've been bogged down with finals so I have'nt gotten a chance to catch iether Kong or Narnia.

As saturated as the colors where for Star wars, I liked the art direction in its own "Starwars" way. It was very uinque and despite the very bright and over saturated lazer bolts and lightsabers, the other stuff was great. Grevous, although coming up shot of expectations as far as the fight went, still looked gorgeous.

And with war of the Worlds, its pretty much what everyone else has said, very beautiful and very well done in its realism.

My opinion might change after seeing Kong, but personaly I don't think that Weta does things that are far and beyond the capabilaties of everyone else. Massive is the only thing that realy sets them appart form other studios.

heney
12-17-2005, 06:49 PM
For me its between Narnia and Kong, Star Wars will probably get the nomination just as a nice gesture to the trilogy even though War of the Worlds looked a whole lot better. I would think that they will probably divide up the nominations to different studios as well. And seeing as how ILM was the main house on both WotW and RotS, they'll probably only get one nomination. I think Rhythm and Weta will get the other two . Both Narnia and Kong had Full hero CG characters interacting with live actors in a believable manner. Personally I thought Kong's compositing was a little weak at times, a lot of it looked like blue screen, but Narnia had it's faults as well. I'm hoping Narnia takes it home, Aslan was mind blowing.

abonora
12-17-2005, 07:32 PM
I am pretty surprised that Lemony Snickets is not even in the list, "Sunny" kicked ass in that one, not to mention the other effects in the movie.

malducin
12-17-2005, 07:50 PM
I am pretty surprised that Lemony Snickets is not even in the list, "Sunny" kicked ass in that one, not to mention the other effects in the movie.

Lemony Snicket's is a 2004 film. It did make the 7 bakeoff finalists but didn't make the 3 selected for the short list to compete.

abonora
12-17-2005, 08:04 PM
fair enough... at least it got between those 7... it surely deserved it.

malducin
12-17-2005, 08:21 PM
fair enough... at least it got between those 7... it surely deserved it.

Technically speaking it might be recognized some other way. One of the two SciTech awards ILM has in competition this year is for image based modeling, which was used in Lemony Snickets to capture the toddlers and create the models for Sunny. SciTech committee met December 7, so it might already be decided.

nitindesign
12-17-2005, 08:45 PM
WAR OF THE WORLDS for me :drool:

leigh
12-17-2005, 08:49 PM
I hope King Kong wins. As much as I loved War Of The Worlds (probably, in my opinion, the most consistent excellent VFX in a film this year), I think Kong deserves it because of Kong's emotional performance. Aslan was also fantastic in Narnia. It's a tough contest this year!

Then again, the winning factors of the Oscar often have very little to do with the actual quality of the product :hmm:

abonora
12-17-2005, 08:56 PM
<<Technically speaking it might be recognized some other way. One of the two SciTech awards ILM has in competition this year is for image based modeling, which was used in Lemony Snickets to capture the toddlers and create the models for Sunny. SciTech committee met December 7, so it might already be decided.>>

Well the major achievement on her imo was the actual skin shading... not that the actual modelling was not challenging, Martin Murphy did a outstanding job on the sculpting.
Considering you can't scan little girls properly since they move so much and most image based modelling tecnics end up being just a base for the actual finished sculpture anyway or wasn't it?

anyway like you said it's a 2004 movie we are kinda hijacking the thread here.

malducin
12-17-2005, 09:14 PM
Considering you can't scan little girls properly since they move so much and most image based modelling tecnics end up being just a base for the actual finished sculpture anyway or wasn't it?

They did create the models out of the Hoffman babies via image based modeling using a multicamera setup. The ILM SIGGRAPH R&D reel briefly showed this. Although I did speak later with some guys there and they mentioned the explanation shown on the reel was a bit simplified for clarity purposes. Don't think there was much sculpting on that.

Well the major achievement on her imo was the actual skin shading

Fortunately that was recognized by 2 SciTech awards last year: one to Henrik Wann Jensen and the Stanford group, and the other to Christophe Hery, Joe Letteri and Ken McGaugh for the initial implementations (in Harry Potter 2 and LOTR 2 and 3) though at that time Snicket's was just released. The CGW article has a nice article describing the shading, like taking polarized pics of the Hoffman babies to extract things like the pure diffuse component of the skin and a few other details.

anyway like you said it's a 2004 movie we are kinda hijacking the thread here.

Yeah, well to bring it more in line here's the candidates for the SciTech awards this year:

17 SciTech achievements in competition (http://www.oscars.org/press/pressreleases/2005/05.09.08.html)

Then again, the winning factors of the Oscar often have very little to do with the actual quality of the product

Bingo!!! Lots of people don't know the exact rules for this which is usually the cause of the flame wars just before and after the Oscart for best VFX is given.

Digit
12-17-2005, 10:52 PM
Theyre all good looking films, WotW in particular, but just the character of Kong alone is enough to beat everything else.

For me, theres no competion - the King wins.

seven6ty
12-17-2005, 11:09 PM
Wow, it is an incredibly tough year! It'll be a very sweet win indeed for whoever goes home with it, that's for sure.

I just don't think Batman belongs up there. It was a solid movie and everything, but the effects didn't strike me as particularly engaging, and I left the film thinking I wanted more, actually. But it did fit the story well, so I couldn't bitch too much there, just thought there wasn't anything truely new or grand there.

I think it would almost be a crime if Star Wars didn't win.

But I also thought War of the Worlds had absolutely goregous effects and animations, although I don't think it was quite on the level of Kong, Star Wars or Narnia in terms of numbers and complexity of shots. I still have to see Kong (tried going last night and missed it, doh!), so can't rule on that one too much just yet, but I agree with a couple of people here in that I think Aslan is one of the most amazing things to be put on film from a computer, not to mention the huge battle scenes and personal character acting bits are really some of the best out there as well.

Anyways, can't wait to see who gets it!

prelot
12-18-2005, 01:13 AM
I'am sure King Kong! just saw the movie and I was Amaze with the Animation and VFX!
Weta gonna be the winner !

Enayla
12-18-2005, 01:20 AM
I'm hoping for Kong. (For me, that's saying a lot - as I'm absolutely in love with Charlie and the Chocolate Factory).

It's simply the first time I've seen a CG character so convincing that I couldn't think of him as not real. Gollum before him was excellently made, but King Kong... wow... watching him, everything from the slight touches of gleams in his eyes, little movements in his face, he felt not only 'real' - but as if played by an excellent actor... (which in itself becomes weird, seeing a monky be so much a MONKEY, but doing such an awesome job of acting). Not only was he very well made, he was believable.

For all that a movie, like War of the Worlds (which I loved, by the way) might have beautiful special effects... I think the real winner here is the masterpiece of a character that seems just as real and alive as the cat now asleep on my knee.

Shaderhacker
12-18-2005, 01:31 AM
I just finished seeing Kong as well. This year is tough. Clearly Kong is the single best CG character. His animation and emotion are unparralled. However, consistant VFX throughout the entire movie has to go to Narnia for me. It had the best overall VFX. The dinosaurs and bugs, spiders, etc.. in Kong were so-so (although I loved the worms SSS).


-M

MrKS
12-18-2005, 03:25 AM
All the movies had great special effects. Good luck to all!

Terrell
12-18-2005, 05:09 AM
I must address a few statements.

I would nominate Star Wars to aknowledge the hard work and technical achievement of ILM, but I certainly wouldn't let them win mainly because of (IMHO) horrible art direction.

This statement is mindboggling. Horrible art direction? Jesus Christ! Do you know what Art Direction is, or did you even see the film. The Art Direction in ROTS was spectacular. This isn't even debateable. It is a visually stunning film every respect.

Both Narnia and Kong had Full hero CG characters interacting with live actors in a believable manner.

So did ROTS and WOTW.

But "Sith" has a shot, not because the work as a whole is that great

I know it's become popular to shit on Star Wars and whine about your disappointment, but give me a frickin' break. The overall work in Star Wars was in fact incredible work by ILM. Second to none as well. I'll said that again for emphasis. SECOND TO NONE! To say otherwise is sheer lunacy.

As for Kong, even though Weta did some great things and it had the single best effect of any film this year, it does not deserve the Oscar. This award is not for the single best effect in a film. It's not for the best film with visual effects. The award is for the overall effort, best visual effectS in a film. Because of that, Kong doesn't deserve. This film had effects that were more inconsistent than many of the other films. The bronto stampeded was just plain bad. The dinos looked unconvincing and the people running amongst the stampede were poorly composited. In fact, this film had some of the worst compositing of any film on the short list. There were numerous shots of Watts that were not composited well. There were background shots of the of the jungle and the jungle environment that weren't all that convincing. A number of times throughout the film, Watts was standing in a jungle environment, and because of unconvincing digital environment and suspect compositing, she looked like she wasn't actually there.

Kong was phenomenal, but Weta did better work in LOTR. As I said, this isn't an award for best CG character or single best effects. It's for the overall effort.

I'm sure Kong will win because of Kong, because it's the freshest in voters mind, but it shouldn't. Then again, the Academy has never had a clue on what they're voting on in this category and why they're voting on it.

I think the overall best efforts this year were WOTW, ROTS, and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, in no particular order. Harry Potter and Narnia run a close second.

Terrell
12-18-2005, 05:11 AM
All the movies had great special effects. Good luck to all!

I can agree with this. I just think Weta's effort was more inconsistent than the other 6. Good movie though.

kmest
12-18-2005, 06:01 AM
if they want to do the respect,i think they should give it to star wars,
as far as i can see anything is perfect in EPIII,the caracters,the battles and massive environments....hope it wins....and they do respect of all the amazing works they did in these 3 movies,

KONG was amazing ,but it had some realy crappy hidden composition errors,specialy with kong in the city and the cars shooting around:shrug: you could see humans pass through cars...but not the KONG himslef,he was realy amazing

narnia was cool too,,the CG animals,specialy aslan was just WWOOOOOOOOOWWWWW

and as leigh said,oscar was never a good point for knowing the quality of VFS...in 1997 TITANIK wins inorder of STARSHIP TROOPERS,in 1999 EPI was far ahead of anymovies those years,even now,but they gave it to matrix,in 2003 MATRIX sequels were not even nominated:scream:

vfx fan
12-18-2005, 04:38 PM
My predictions:

"King Kong"
"Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith"
"War of the Worlds" or "The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe"
All had fabulous work, but I think politics may take the reign here. "Kong" because it was a HUGE undertaking, despite various instants of weak compositing.

"Sith" would get in simply because it's "Star Wars," and I think if "Attack of the Clones" wasn't "Star Wars," then "Minority Report" or "Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets" would've taken its place.

And finally, "War of the Worlds," because Steven Spielberg has a knack for getting his films nominated in the technical categories.

"Narnia" could replace "War of the Worlds" or maybe even "Kong," simply because it, too, had some of the most phenomenal character animation ever achieved and was also quite a big undertaking with an added bonus: it didn't have the same awkward compositing as "Kong" did.

As for the other finalists, my comments about "Batman Begins" during the summer should be forgotten because I'm getting used to the fact of Warner Bros. restarting the franchise, but the fx of the film, while serving the story well, were nothing that impressive -- particularly the monorail shots during the final battle -- but I'm still glad the film got into the seven finalists.

"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" also had some fabulous work. Various British vendors brought to life Tim Burton's trademark quirky vision. The film displayed delightful imagination, but I think it should be more attributed to the art direction and makeup department.

"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire," again, had some very impressive work -- particularly the mermaids and the dragon, not to mention the various miniatures -- but, again, none of it struck me as something that special. Similar sequences have been designed in all three previous films, leading "Goblet of Fire" to be a bit underwhelming. That and I was a bit underwhelmed by the film itself. I prefer the first two films by Chris Columbus, because they delivered that sense of awe sort of lacking in the last two films.

* * * * *

And what's missing?

"Sin City" -- This film was a truely magnificent accomplishment both technologically and cinematically. The film wonderfully married both art and technology and I was disappointed to see "Sin City" forgotten.

"The Island" -- Michael Bay's best film since "The Rock" was underrated both critically and financially. Bay's departure from Bruckheimer was a wise move -- I certainly didn't want another "Bad Boys" or "Pearl Harbor"-type movie. The futuristic vision realized by ILM was one of my favorites in recent years, not to mention impressive digitally enhanced action sequences.

"Fantastic Four" -- I realize this film suffered from terrible casting decisions, with the exception of Michael Chiklis as The Thing, and unimaginative one-liners for the villain, but the digital work provided by a plethora of smaller fx facilities such as Giant Killer Robots and SW Digital was very amusing in a comic book sort of way. I also felt this film was an entertaining origin story appropriate for the summer movie season. It should've at least been considered.

seadwellar
12-18-2005, 09:55 PM
All are worthy for different reasons. Hard to deny the achievment that was Kong.

MartinGFoster
12-18-2005, 10:57 PM
[QUOTE=vfx fan]My predictions:

"King Kong"
"Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith"
"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe"
All had fabulous work, but I think politics may take the reign here. "Kong" because it was a HUGE undertaking, despite various instants of weak compositing.
[QUOTE=vfx fan]

I'm going with this list for predictions. For the short list selection it is a bit more about VFX, rather than politics, because it's the VFX society that votes on who makes the short list.

Once it gets to the academy voting it seems to be more about which was the most popular movie and nothing to do with quality or amazing achievements. So I think either Kong or Narnia will win the actual award. Sounds like both had some "spotty" compositing of bluescreen actors, but I hope that can be overlooked, ahem.

Spriggan12
12-19-2005, 02:55 AM
I say either Star Wars III or War of the Worlds, SW III ended up being the highst grossing movie of 2005, with no other movie coming close. That being said, War of the Worlds and Harry Potter where pretty good as well. I dont Kong will win simply because Hollywood remembers the huge awards it gave Peter Jackson two years a go with LOTR. The run away winner might "Chocalate Factory."



Its just so hard to say. King failed be the Big Movie event this last weekend My money is SW or War of the Worlds, with a possible not to Harry Potter.



-Keith

malducin
12-19-2005, 03:43 AM
The film wonderfully married both art and technology and I was disappointed to see "Sin City" forgotten.

Well the process is that the VFX Branch first makes a list with films with significant VFX, might be usually 30-40 films on the first round. They gather and start discussing each until they whittle it down to the 7 bakeoff finalists.

Unfortunately every year are many omissions (Constantine and Kingdom of Heaven to mention a few), but thankfully the VES Awards are more detailed and inclusive.

JDex
12-19-2005, 04:15 AM
"Batman Begins"
Haven't seen... bought the DVD today though, so it's just a matter of time.

"Charlie and the Chocolate Factory"
Haven't seen yet, working on it.

"The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe"
Haven't seen yet. Have heard nothing but dissapointing reviews on the acting and adaptation... but the VFX sound promising. Lions and Wolves and Beavers oh-my!

"Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire"
VFX wise... very nice. The dragon was great. Overall though, it didn't strike me as a contender up against the competition I've seen so far.

"King Kong"
Kong is King... from the current viewed listing. Kong himself. Linda summed it up nicely.

"Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith"
VFX wise... too much of it. Alot of great, but too much. I blame the "maker". Make the effects help tell the story, don't make the story VFX.

"War of the Worlds"
Not sure why all the fuss... there was some killer new effects, but I don't think it worked very well. The walker concept was bizarre... weight was not a factor apparently in the animation in many respects. Dunno... I bought the DVD and watched it twice... prolly will collect dust from here on out.

jeremybirn
12-19-2005, 05:59 AM
My first guess is Kong. But there are biases at work in the voting. Bias against Kong: PJ has recently walked off with a best VFX award, some may think it's time to give one to someone else. Bias in favor of Kong: timing. It came out shortly before members are asked to vote. The Kong buzz is hard to shake. Bias against Kong: Voters are US VFX artists, who tend to vote for their own connections and companies.

-jeremy

jeremybirn
12-19-2005, 06:02 AM
"Batman Begins"
Haven't seen... bought the DVD today though, so it's just a matter of time.

Glad you got it! Awsome movie. Some people lost faith in that franchise (it had some not so great characters before and I was down to watching them all for the VFX and the art direction) but Batman Begins is genuinely a cool film, great villain and everything.

-jeremy

beaker
12-19-2005, 07:50 AM
Bias against Kong: Voters are US VFX artists, who tend to vote for their own connections and companies.Only the nominations are determined by Vfx artists. The final award is voted on by the entire academy, very little of which are vfx artists.

HamsaPaksham
12-19-2005, 12:58 PM
Iīm sorry, no offense, but Iīm gonna give you my opinion. I pay the price.

I hated War of the Worlds! Itīs the most formulaic movie ever made. Iīm reaaaly getting tired of Hollywood movies. Thereīs no substance.

Thatīs why the studios are making less and less public every year.

Capel
12-19-2005, 08:36 PM
my vote goes to Kong, of course.

the award is for "best" visual effects, so it all depends on how you define "best". to me, it means the most innovative, new, groundbreaking, industry-advancing effects. for my money, Kong gets this hands down.

War of the Worlds - easily the most consistent, effects-wise. but really only two characters. Tripods and aliens. not a big enough undertaking, IMHO.

Harry Potter - i love the series, but aside from Dobby, nothing in any of the movies really stands out to me.

Batman and Charlie - again, not enough in sheer volume.

Narnia - if kong doesn't win, then i think this should. aslan looked incredible, but for me, the acting wasn't enough to win the award. and i think that's partly because of the script, and partly because of Liam Neeson. he's amazing, but i just didn't think his voice fit. but yeah, my vote is 2nd runner up for Narnia.

ROTS - come on. it's the same re-hashed, light sabres, blasters, BORING space battles, cheesy droids. and yoda.... he looks like he's about to fall asleep. there's nothing we haven't seen before a thousand times over. sure, the dino chase in Kong had some comping issues, but i wasn't looking at my watch saying, "geez, how long is this gonna take?" most of the action in ROTS had me yawning. don't get me wrong. none of these effects were BAD. they're just OLD NEWS. i've never been a star wars fan, and it boggles my mind when die hard fans try to defend this franchise. you guys should be PISSED. but i digress...

Kong himself was even an improvement on Gollum, which i wouldn't have believed if i hadn't seen it for myself. and this is WITHOUT ANY DIALOGUE. i think some people are forgetting that. what an incredible achievement. not to mention the re-creation of 1933 new york. it's a lot more difficult to recreate something that actually existed at one point in time, and WETA's New York was flawless. couple that with the Kong vs. Rex fight for storyboarding alone, and we've got a winner.

IMHO, this is the future of visual effects. making believable characters that and audience can fall in love with and care about as much as the actor standing next to them. go Kong!

beaker
12-20-2005, 01:21 AM
my vote goes to Kong, of course.

the award is for "best" visual effects, so it all depends on how you define "best". to me, it means the most innovative, new, groundbreaking, industry-advancing effects. for my money, Kong gets this hands down.While Weta's 3d work was amazing there were way too many 2d compositing issues for me to give them the best visual effects award. Your only as good as your worst piece and there were some doozies.


BTW, it's best visual effects, not best feature or best acting. All your comments about the movies have to do with how good the story, acting, cinematography etc... is, not the vfx.

Capel
12-20-2005, 01:51 AM
While Weta's 3d work was amazing there were way too many 2d compositing issues for me to give them the best visual effects award. Your only as good as your worst piece and there were some doozies.


BTW, it's best visual effects, not best feature or best acting. All your comments about the movies have to do with how good the story, acting, cinematography etc... is, not the vfx.

i don't agree with that "only as good as your worst piece" bit. if that's the case that all the nominations were "sh*tty".

and the acting i was talking about was Kong's, man. And i'm pretty sure he was a visual effect. did you even read my post?

...not to mention the re-creation of 1933 new york. it's a lot more difficult to recreate something that actually existed at one point in time, and WETA's New York was flawless. couple that with the Kong vs. Rex fight for storyboarding alone, and we've got a winner...

New York recreation and Kong vs. Rex fight. neither have much to do with acting.

malducin
12-20-2005, 02:04 AM
did you even read my post?

Yes, but your standards (which actually I would believe for regular members of the Academy) everything would disqualified, even Kong. You mention ROTS is rehashed, but King Kong well it's the thrid version of it (not coun ting the sequel of the second version), more big monkeys, jungles, monsters, etc. You mention not enough sheer volume for Charlie and Batman, but it's about the quality, the artistry, the innovation. WotW was a lot more than just the tripods and aliens (I believe there's like 45 min. worth of VFX) and VFX encompasses all disciplines: environments, matte paitings, miniatures, compositing, etc. not just character animation. And Harry Potter there's plenty of great stuff in the last one, from Voldemort's CG prosthetics, the dragon, merpeople, etc.

Nadril
12-20-2005, 02:30 AM
Haven't seen WoTw's yet, so I can't comment on that, but i'm going to Kong. Some of the CG there was amazing, especialy the characters.

beaker
12-20-2005, 08:45 AM
i don't agree with that "only as good as your worst piece" bit. if that's the case that all the nominations were "sh*tty".I can forgive a few bad shots like the 5-6 bad comps in Narnia, but Kong had enough where I lost count. Don't get me wrong, I still think Kong was amazing, but there enough bad comps in there that it was unexcusable. Even if the gorilla was frickin amazing.

and the acting i was talking about was Kong's, man. And i'm pretty sure he was a visual effect. did you even read my post?The trouble is that on all the other nominees you only mentioned the reasons why they were not as good as Kong vfx is because of other stuff not visual effects related (story/script/human acting).

Your Kong explaination is the only one that actually mentioned the vfx as the reason why it should win. I'm just saying, be consistent.

Also amount of vfx does not make it any more or less qualified. It's called "best vfx", ie best "Quality", not "Quantity" of vfx you can throw at the screen. If that we're true then Matrix Revolutions/Reloaded should have won last year (it didn't even get nominated). It had by far the most amount of quality vfx from last years movies(even though the movie wasn't that great).

Capel
12-20-2005, 06:39 PM
The trouble is that on all the other nominees you only mentioned the reasons why they were not as good as Kong vfx is because of other stuff not visual effects related (story/script/human acting).


nope. i ONLY mention the VFX of the other nominees in my post. geez, dude. it's still up there. read it a couple more times before you post again.

and besides, acting has everything to do with ANIMATION. and last time i checked, animation was a huge part of the visual effects process.

i'm gonna say this in as few words as possible, just for you, beaker. Kong should win the Oscar solely because of Kong himself. IMHO, the task of creating Kong with as much believabliity as they did, is greater than any other task undertaken by any other studio this year.

Just my opinion, friend. Try to keep that in mind when you respond.

Joblh
12-20-2005, 07:35 PM
Kong, War of the worlds or Narnia should get it, but in the end i'd say Kong is the king of the oscars, if Kong wasn't a cg character it would've gotten the best actor oscar...
War of the worlds was the most flawless of the movies but didn't had those eyepopping shots that Kong had. Star Wars was just more of the same old lightsabers, beams and whatnot.

let's hope for Kong :deal:

Bonedaddy
12-20-2005, 08:18 PM
WotW had some jaw-droppingly amazing compositing. That movie, as a whole, was probably the most seamless, invisible effects work I've ever seen. And on a ridiculously compressed timeframe, with what I am taking to be some really messy original plates.

Whatever happened to the best effects being the ones you don't see?

artifish
12-21-2005, 12:24 AM
Hi, as there seems to be a bit of confusion what the VFX Oscar is for and who decides, here the official rules:
http://www.oscars.org/78academyawards/rules/rule22.html

-- the most interesting bit ---
2. The Visual Effects Branch Executive Committee shall select members of a Steering Committee from members of the Visual Effects Branch to review a reminder list of all eligible motion pictures and shall cast secret ballots to select a maximum of seven productions for further consideration. Achievements shall be judged within the parameters defined by the 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.
--------

So a lot is about VFX in support of the whole movie and its story. So the movie itself comes into consideration, not just the FX craft. IMO If you wanted you could also read this as best vfx film (not best vfx!) - which might explain why a few years ago Titanic won and not StarshipTroopers, or Gladiator (with just around 50 vfx shots) and not Hollow Man or Perfect Storm.

so my predictions for the shortlist Kong, WotW and Narnia or Potter... my guess is that WotW has the highest chances of winning

the VES awards are going to be more focused on the craft, though - and bad movies with great fx will have a chance to win, too. for me it is the more important award for our industry (though of course it doesn't have the publicity of the oscars)

my 2 cents,
carsten

jordibares
12-21-2005, 11:55 AM
Taking in account that Kong is the leading character of the movie, the scale of the movie, that its performance is truly superb (probably is the best actor in the movie) and that technically they have gone a few steps further than anyone else technically (digital doubles for example) i don't have a shadow of doubt they should win with total authority even if the compositing is not 100% there.

but that is just my opinion..

colinbear
12-21-2005, 12:46 PM
WotW had some jaw-droppingly amazing compositing. That movie, as a whole, was probably the most seamless, invisible effects work I've ever seen. And on a ridiculously compressed timeframe, with what I am taking to be some really messy original plates.

Whatever happened to the best effects being the ones you don't see?


its an interesting paradox,, the better the work, the less obvious it is to the general audience, and the less "stand-out" it must seem to the majority of the people that vote for awards such as this.

i wish they'd publish the voting results broken down by academy branch :)

DrFx
12-21-2005, 01:24 PM
I must be a real doofus, as I didn't spot the bad comping problems in Kong. Which parts is everybody referring to?
I got so absorved in the movie, and for me Kong is one of the rare few CG characters that I actually found "believable" (Gollum was not)! All the facial and body animation, the fur, the underlying bones and muscles should grant it the Oscar imho.

akaiwa
12-21-2005, 10:55 PM
I must be a real doofus, as I didn't spot the bad comping problems in Kong. Which parts is everybody referring to?
I got so absorved in the movie, and for me Kong is one of the rare few CG characters that I actually found "believable" (Gollum was not)! All the facial and body animation, the fur, the underlying bones and muscles should grant it the Oscar imho.

Agreed. Except for one shot with Naomi and a not-so-well keyed out outline (which I wouldn't have noticed had the clip not been released earlier and everyone griped), I just sat and watched the movie (twice) and didn't notice any errors. Oh, and one part where the car interescts some passerbys, but damn if that movie doesn't deserve to win. WotW was nice and seamless, but for Kong's case nearly every shot involved some sort of CG, and they pulled it off great.

seven6ty1
12-22-2005, 02:14 AM
and that technically they have gone a few steps further than anyone else technically (digital doubles for example)

In what way have they gone further than anyone else? And what did they do with digital doubles that was so ground breaking?

jake_$teed
12-22-2005, 06:26 AM
I really can't beleive "Sin City" didn't make it. It looked great, it served the story, and I'd never seen anything quite like it (including the blurred, grained and glowed visual slop of "Sky Captain", which got to the bakeoffs.)

"Charlie" was cool, but not mindblowing.

As for "Star Wars", I respect all of the hard work and artistery, but it's just more of the same.

"War of the Worlds" was incredible.

"Kong" had it's dodgy moments, but goddamn, that ape was a revelation. I really, really cared for him. (Props to Ms. Watts also) And it was such a great time at the movies, I just rolled with it. Even when Black and Brody were clearly standing in an awful comp, I was still beside myself with glee after seeing a Brontosaurus stampede end with a crazy wipe-out/pile up!

My vote is for "King Kong", but if "War of the Worlds" won, cool, why not?

And "King Kong" is absolutely going to win. There is no way in hell it won't make it to the final three. After that, Academy voters will always lean towards the movie they liked the most. And since "King Kong" is, for the most part, a critics darling, it's the shoe in.

You may not like my opinion, but after years of watching oscar, I think my predicition is pretty sound. And I'm willing to bet $50. Any takers?

MartyMcFly
12-22-2005, 06:52 AM
Just dropping in my 2 cents.....

I hope the War of the Worlds takes it. I thought they did a wonderful job on that movie, especially in the amount of time they had.

Narnia was done extremely well,...and kong was pretty good. Kong however was more of a rollercoaster ride (bad shot,..good shot,...then a bad shot..etc) then the other films. Every film had its's ups and downs....but I felt kong was more so.

They are all worthy though....:thumbsup:

malducin
12-23-2005, 02:43 AM
I must be a real doofus, as I didn't spot the bad comping problems in Kong. Which parts is everybody referring to?

It's particularly jarring in the dino stampede sequence and somewhat in the disembarkment shots to Skull Island. There are also a few sprinkled here and there like any other film, but besides those 2 major sequences the rest of the film was fine.

As for "Star Wars", I respect all of the hard work and artistery, but it's just more of the same.

Just like King Kong and the rest of the bakeoff finalists :-/ (never understood this type of reasoning).

Lovas
12-23-2005, 08:52 AM
Don't forget, we are talking here the VFX Oscar and not the awards for the story, originality of the subject etc. With that in mind IMHO Star Wars will be the winner even though the competition is pretty close this time.

As for the King Kong, despite my expectations, I enjoyed it - but not for its VFX or the story. I prefered the second version of the story (I hate the 30's, the Broadway theatrical kitch, Art Deco and the general aesthetics nd the mentality of the period. In general, I HATE RETRO!:) ...). I liked this version of King Kong exclusively for that (better than) Kylie lookalike leading actress, Naomi. Was she real or VFX:) (don't laugh, you never know with Jackson)? If she were a CG character I'd certainly vote for King Kong as the VFX OScar winner:thumbsup: ... She even screamed so sexy...

beaker
12-23-2005, 09:30 AM
It's particularly jarring in the dino stampede sequence and somewhat in the disembarkment shots to Skull Island. There are also a few sprinkled here and there like any other film, but besides those 2 major sequences the rest of the film was fine.You forgot just about anytime the real Naomi Watts was in kong's hand she slipped a lot and her hair was really badly don. Also the countless shots of her in front cg skys that were pretty bad.

vfx fan
12-24-2005, 02:41 AM
I'm going to say that "Revenge of the Sith" should win a vfx Oscar only because ILM deserved it for "The Phantom Menace." The "Star Wars" prequels were seriously overlooked by the Academy despite the amazing achievement in all three films.


As for "Star Wars", I respect all of the hard work and artistery, but it's just more of the same.


I don't understand this reasoning either, as the same could be said about "The Two Towers" and "Return of the King." There was technically nothing new or spectacular conceptually in "Return of the King" other than having the film's big battle take place in the daytime.

JDex
12-27-2005, 03:52 PM
Glad you got it! Awsome movie. Some people lost faith in that franchise (it had some not so great characters before and I was down to watching them all for the VFX and the art direction) but Batman Begins is genuinely a cool film, great villain and everything.

-jeremy

Finally watched Batman Begins last night... terrific! :bounce:

I'd truely love to see this team make more... Bale was a wonderful Wayne/Dark Knight.

I still gotta vote Kong for Best VFX, but this was a brilliant take on the origins and character of Batman. The VFX were great, but Kong's VFX contributions seemed more seamless and story propelling.

BillB
12-28-2005, 12:18 AM
WotW had some jaw-droppingly amazing compositing. That movie, as a whole, was probably the most seamless, invisible effects work I've ever seen. And on a ridiculously compressed timeframe, with what I am taking to be some really messy original plates. From what I've heard, given some of the footage Weta were handed, it's a miracle Kong has as few compositing goofs as it does. But agreed, WotW was a lot more seamless. I still think Kong was a (much) bigger achievment though.

JeroenDStout
12-28-2005, 12:35 AM
Hm, RotS looked very much like someone invented a cheap way to transpose drug-induced dreams with full bright colours into a movie and wrap a death blow to the entire series. No winner.

Batman Begins was nice, but... well... there weren't many effects...

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory - they lost me believe-wise at the leader. Bad cg :|

Kong was amazing even though the compositing wasn't that well I had my share of 'wait... Kong isn't real' moments after the movie, meaning he's good.

Winner for me is WotW, though, entire movie I didn't think once about visual effects. It just all was real. More real as the stupid ending in Boston, anyway ;)

Dyne
12-28-2005, 11:14 PM
I think Wotw will win as well, because the special effects were 'safe' and realistic. Star wars is my fav, but the effects were quite adventureous, and maybe some of the ideas were a bit too far ahead for the technology involved (like the planet of Felucia). Wotw is pretty much flawless.

jubba
12-29-2005, 02:25 PM
that the VFX oscar generally goes to the best, or at least most popular film - remember Gladiator beating Hollow Man and Perfect Storm? Gladiator had some great stuff in it, but the other two movies really broke new ground in VFX and CGI. However, as films they sucked (totally in the case of HM). Gladiator was a great, enjoyable and successful picture - that's what the Acadmey tends to focus on.

So who's going to get it? The strongest movies in the bakeoff in terms of critical response are Batman Begins and Kong. The biggest in terms of box office are ROTS and Goblet of Fire. My prediction is nominations for Kong, ROTS and either WotW/Batman Begins/Narnia. The winner will either be Kong or ROTS. If it was down to me I'd give it to Batman - the combination of VFX and SFX such as the Batmobile (also considered for this award, despite it being called best VFX only) was amazing and unique this year. I keep reading that people thought there were few effects in Batman Begins - there were hundreds, they were just so damn good and subtle that you didn't notice them!

nickepstein
01-03-2006, 05:01 PM
i didnt realise sfx was included -- having seen all the movies i would still say war of the worlds. someone said about not thinking about cg, and although you do know its a huge cg alien carrying death machine, it completely makes the action rather than detracts from it, which unfortunately i felt happened more than a few times in kong, narnia and rots. wotw is definitely the most consistant of the lot -- i was amazed, particuarly the ships rising out of the water, and that shot with the burning train (what a cool scene, i didnt expect that) -- congrats to anyone who worked on that (and the other finalists)

BOSAH
01-03-2006, 05:24 PM
I really can't beleive "Sin City" didn't make it. It looked great, it served the story, and I'd never seen anything quite like it

I agree. but IIRC didnt they use seperate studios for each section ? So.. if it did win, who would get the oscar ?

I reckon Kong will win, but I was a lot more impressed with the work in WOTW.

beaker
01-03-2006, 08:06 PM
I agree. but IIRC didnt they use seperate studios for each section ? So.. if it did win, who would get the oscar ?Up to 4(maybe 5, I forget) people can be named for the oscar. So usually with multiple studios, they will name the vfx soup from the top studios that did the work.

kmest
01-03-2006, 09:17 PM
i dont konw why peoples are so Cruel about ILM's job on ROTS...i sudgest you go and watch the DVD one more time and concentrate on EFFECTS ONLY.....on how huge amount of ellemets are,how realstic and artistical are all of em,,,,howmany caracters and environments you see there for only 10 seconds (like all those amazing environments during clones killing Jedis),cg yoda,cg emperor,general grivous,marvelous wooki's fight sequenses on kashik,clone troopers(all cg),and that first long battle shot....wooh.........and i didnt saw even one bad blue screen compositing(which i saw on KING KONG alot).....and.....how much money was spending on the project:king kong costs 220 million and ROTS was around 140..big diffrense

malducin
01-03-2006, 09:36 PM
Up to 4(maybe 5, I forget) people can be named for the oscar. So usually with multiple studios, they will name the vfx soup from the top studios that did the work.

It's 4 people per nomination, which nowadays can cause quite a bit of a problem. Seeing the names of some of the nominees I was surprised by some, like for Charlie and Chocolate Factory. I don't have the listing for Kong but that list will probably be the most interested as to whom be named besides Joe Letteri.

superhooman
01-03-2006, 11:51 PM
Congratulations to everyone who worked on all these sterling productions. I am rooting for War of the Worlds!

seven6ty1
01-04-2006, 02:07 AM
From what I've heard, given some of the footage Weta were handed, it's a miracle Kong has as few compositing goofs as it does. But agreed, WotW was a lot more seamless. I still think Kong was a (much) bigger achievment though.

I don't necessarily think that I'd be able to believe that. What I saw wasn't problems with the stock footage, but problems with the compositing itself. The film quality didn't seem at all bad that they had to work with, but rather the compositing and positioning of the CG to life action elements. Like most people have pointed out, I was never convinced anytime that Kong held anything live action in his hand, nor whenever hair was blowing infront of matte backgrounds or CG elements.

Agreed, Kong was a significantly bigger achievement than WotW, but definently not nearly as big as RotS, and about equal to Narnia. I think these are the three films it will come down to, which is definently going to be a close call, but I still think that RotS deserves it.

beaker
01-04-2006, 02:27 AM
It's 4 people per nomination, which nowadays can cause quite a bit of a problem. Seeing the names of some of the nominees I was surprised by some, like for Charlie and Chocolate Factory. I don't have the listing for Kong but that list will probably be the most interested as to whom be named besides Joe Letteri.I always feel bad for person #4 when they go up on stage. There always has to be one person(#2 o#3) that hogs the mic thanking everyone they ever knew since they were a kid. You know that 4th person is screwed and is going to get cut off.

CGTalk Moderation
01-04-2006, 02:27 AM
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.