PDA

View Full Version : Best VFX Academy Nominations


malducin
01-31-2006, 01:10 PM
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the witch and the Wardrobe
King Kong
War of the Worlds

Congratulations to all nominees

78th Academy Award nominations (http://oscar.com/nominees/list.html)
VFX nominations (http://oscar.com/nominees/achievementinvisualeffectscategory.html)

Pentagramma
01-31-2006, 01:52 PM
The three nominees are excellent! Congratulations to everyone who worked on them.

dax3d
01-31-2006, 04:04 PM
Why only 3 nominees? Aren't there usually more? I would have liked to see HP: Goblet of Fire, I thought it had great effects. The dragon looked amazing...pretty much most of the movie looked great to me. While I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, I would have thought Episode III got nominated.

Shaderhacker
01-31-2006, 04:34 PM
Popularity wins in this category. Not necessarily the best VFX. Episode 3 had some wonderful effects that probably couldn't have been pulled off by any other studio, but alas, ILM isn't going to win this year either.

-M

malducin
01-31-2006, 04:39 PM
3 nominees have been the norm since the mid 80s. When the VFX Branch was created in 1995, the rules established that only 3 films could be nominated instead of 5 (many other categories also have that restriction, most notably the 2 Sound Categories) and the creation of the VFX Bakeoff (with 7 projects to choose from as finalists from which the 3 nominated ones are chosen).

Grgeon
01-31-2006, 04:45 PM
Congrats to all the nominees. I too would've thought that episode III would've made the list. Still, great choices.

George

cosmonaut
01-31-2006, 04:56 PM
While I wasn't a huge fan of the movie, I would have thought Episode III got nominated.

Agreed, I was suprised by this too. I thought for sure it would get it, but it only got nominated for best makeup?!?!? Huh? It deserved at least a few more technical nominations ... I mean, as good as Narnia was, besides Aslan I didn't think the effects were all that great.

jussing
01-31-2006, 05:07 PM
Anyone know why ILM have been systematically robbed of Oscars since Forrest Gump??

- Jonas

leuey
01-31-2006, 05:08 PM
who nominates the films anyway? i suppose it's possible that the people doing the nominating wouldn't know what's beautifull and a technical achievment vs. what's just beautiful. Maybe it doesn't matter - it's a little shocking EP III wasn't even nominated.

-Greg

phobos78
01-31-2006, 05:11 PM
Anyone know why ILM have been systematically robbed of Oscars since Forrest Gump??

- Jonas


um...ILM did War of the Worlds, and some stuff on Narnia. they're more nominated than any other studio this year.

malducin
01-31-2006, 05:15 PM
Anyone know why ILM have been systematically robbed of Oscars since Forrest Gump??

That's not really the case. It has more to do with how the Academy operates. All the membership votes for winners, so you get a disproportinate number of people like actors, directors, producers and screenwriters who vote who the winner is. So usually the most popular or critcically acclaimed film wins best VFX.

who nominates the films anyway?

The VFX Branch members, composed of VFX veterans and professionals.

Then again there have been a few controversies in the last few years, and some of it is chucked if the movie had a poor presentation at the Bakeoff, among other things.

Rule 22 - Special Rules for the VFX Award (http://oscars.org/78academyawards/rules/rule22.html)

leigh
01-31-2006, 05:27 PM
Anyone know why ILM have been systematically robbed of Oscars since Forrest Gump??

- Jonas

They worked on War of the Worlds and Narnia ;)

I have to admit to being rather surprised at the fact that Star Wars wasn't nominated either (I thought that considering it was the final film in the series, it would get nominated almost purely because of that alone), but that doesn't change the fact that all three of the films nominated had top notch VFX. It will be interesting to see who wins :)

thethule
01-31-2006, 05:31 PM
Very odd that star wars isnt nominated for best vfx, in fact, its a complete travesty. I mean, i loathed the films, but that was some damn tasty CG (mostly). What a joke the Oscars are. Still, congrats to everyone who made the list. And, i think that War of the Worlds should win.


Marc

geo5sf
01-31-2006, 05:38 PM
Yea, ILM is responsible for W of the W.. and deserves the nomination for that...and possibly a win.. but to Pick Narnia over ROTS is a travesty... it is not in the same league. And yea ILM did work on Narnia, but I think it was only 10% of the battle scene.... Besides ROTS batman Begins deserves the nomination... more

Terrell
01-31-2006, 05:53 PM
I mean, as good as Narnia was, besides Aslan I didn't think the effects were all that great.

Truth be told, aside from the CG Kong and perhaps old New York, a lot of Kong's effects were downright bad. Bad compositing all over the place, horrible dino stampede, Kong dancing on ice, and jungle environments that weren't convincing. But you knew it would get a nom based on Kong alone. Narnia is in no way deserving over ROTS, and even Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

ROTS deserved a nom not because it was the alst Star Wars film, but because it's FX work by ILM is second to none. Oh well! What can you do. The Oscars have become a joke.

seven6ty
01-31-2006, 06:01 PM
Woo hoo! Was stoked to hear about the Narnia nomination, but I too think it's a travesty ROTS didn't get nominated... Although I'd have a hard time figuring which of the current three I'd want to have dropped.

Terrell
01-31-2006, 06:05 PM
They worked on War of the Worlds and Narnia

I don't think he said they were robbed of nominations. He said they have been robbed of Oscars, and he's right. They don't deserve to win every year, but they haven't won in 10 years. That's a complete load because there were at least 4 times in that 10 year span they should have won. But like I said now, the Academy is not about honoring the best. Never was.

phobos78
01-31-2006, 06:16 PM
I don't think he said they were robbed of nominations. He said they have been robbed of Oscars, and he's right. They don't deserve to win every year, but they haven't won in 10 years. That's a complete load because there were at least 4 times in that 10 year span they should have won. But like I said now, the Academy is not about honoring the best. Never was.


Having gone to the bake off this year... the 3 best were picked. Ofcourse I'm bias on one, but it was just the feel I had walking out. It was a VERY GOOD YEAR for FX.. It was a tough call, and i'm sure the vote was very close, So I say congrats the artists of the 3 nominees, as well as the rest of the bake off finalists. beautiful stuff from EVERYONE!

Terrell
01-31-2006, 06:31 PM
Having gone to the bake off this year... the 3 best were picked.

Not by a longshot as far as I'm concerned. I've seen all 7 films up for the nomination. Potter, ROTS, CATCF were all superior to Narnia, and I love Narnia and thought it had some great effects, especially Aslan. Aslan was incredibly well done. But it's overall work was not as seamless or as good as those 3 in my opinion. Kong was obvious because of the work done on the CG Kong. But if you're talking about overall work throughout the film, it still isn't as good as those 3 or WOTW. But Kong will win. War of the Worlds should win.

But opinions vary.

phobos78
01-31-2006, 06:33 PM
Not by a longshot as far as I'm concerned. I've seen all 7 films up for the nomination. Potter, ROTS, CATCF were all superior to Narnia, and I love Narnia and thought it had some great effects, especially Aslan. Aslan was incredibly well done. But it's overall work was not as seamless or as good as those 3 in my opinion. Kong was obvious because of the work done on the CG Kong. But if you're talking about overall work throughout the film, it still isn't as good as those 3 or WOTW. But Kong will win. War of the Worlds should win.

But opinions vary.


I suppose thats one opinion.

seven6ty
01-31-2006, 07:05 PM
Kong is the one I think shouldn't win. It's the only one I saw that had such bad VFX that it completely took me out of the movie at times and kind of made me cringe. Of course the stuffed Aslan did the same to me in Narnia, lol, but that wasn't a VFX and most people didn't even notice it, it seems.

jewalker
01-31-2006, 07:11 PM
I'm just curious as to what you think was poorly done in Narnia? Aslan has received accolades from many people. What parts of the visual effects were you dissappointed with? Many people have mentioned that they don't think Narnia is deserving, so, why not?

superhooman
01-31-2006, 07:14 PM
Congratulations to all nominees. I hope WOTW wins! :D ILM deserve it.

Kong is the one I think shouldn't win. It's the only one I saw that had such bad VFX that it completely took me out of the movie at times and kind of made me cringe. Of course the stuffed Aslan did the same to me in Narnia, lol, but that wasn't a VFX and most people didn't even notice it, it seems.

Okay okay I am going to take a wild guess here and say you worked on narnia, didn't you? Cuz this must be the hundredth post I've seen from you raving about how amazing narnia was, and how it is so much better than every thing else that came out last year... which makes me think it was probably your first film too. Get over yourself man, and stop putting other films down just to boost your ego.

rblitz7
01-31-2006, 07:16 PM
Kong is the one I think shouldn't win. It's the only one I saw that had such bad VFX that it completely took me out of the movie at times and kind of made me cringe. Of course the stuffed Aslan did the same to me in Narnia, lol, but that wasn't a VFX and most people didn't even notice it, it seems.
How could someone call King Kong "bad VFX"? I could understand if some parts were below par, but bad VFX?

seven6ty
01-31-2006, 07:26 PM
Well, it was the comping that killed it for me. And I'm just being honest in that it was the only one of all 7 that actually detracted from the movie for me. And yup, worked on Narnia, and yup, first movie. And if you noticed, I didn't rave about it at all in that post, and all I did was point out something I didn't like. Heck, I've already said before if it were up to me ROTS would be the winner this year as I think it's the most deserving.

slime
01-31-2006, 07:41 PM
I think WotW has the most consistent and believable effects, but I'm surprised that it made it over RotS, which has a lot more effects work there and was the end of the series.
Harry Potter had surprisingly good effects too, but I don't think good enough to beat Kong, Arlsan or the tripods :D

Anyway, congratulations to everyone! It was a great year for visual effects.

jussing
01-31-2006, 07:51 PM
Congratulations to all nominees. I hope WOTW wins! :D ILM deserve it.They wont - ILM don't get Oscars anymore. Terrell, you read my mind, I was talking about not winning.

As for Kong, I think the effects rocked solid, though. :shrug:

Sure, not all Kong and dino shots were 100%, but when did you ever see a movie that had only perfect VFX? Stop-motion monsters in Ghostbusters? I don't think so... Show me a movie with lots of visual effects, where not a single flaw can be found.

:)

Cheers,
- Jonas

Kai01W
01-31-2006, 09:02 PM
Not having seen Narnia, I must say I was not convinced by Kong. Great CG Kong but too many bad shots, especially the people running between the dinos legs was just really bad. The jungle did not really get me either. Some of Kongs movements as others pointed out too have been too light (some jumping and the ice sequence).
ROTS really deserved it. Just brilliant. Even Sin City would have been a nice candidate though I did not really like the movie.

-k

jng
01-31-2006, 09:29 PM
Today it's very hard to not be conscious of vfxs in a film. When I look at any film I'm thinking how good is the compositing, the modeling, the animation, the textures....etc. Unless the story is so engrossing and unusual I lose interest right away. It's sometimes not an advantage to know so much about the the technical workings of film making.

anakinbrego
01-31-2006, 09:59 PM
Not having seen Narnia, I must say I was not convinced by Kong. Great CG Kong but too many bad shots, especially the people running between the dinos legs was just really bad.

ROTS really deserved it. Just brilliant.
-k
I completely agree with what you've said here!!!

dax3d
01-31-2006, 11:32 PM
I agree about Kong...Kong himself was amazing but there were a bunch of shots that kind of popped out at me. I thought WoTW was amazing and seamless...also enjoyed Potter (fx and story), and like a lot of Batman Begins...

The effects were used to help tell the story, but to me didn't get in the way of the story. I don't recall a shot in those movies that distracted me in any way(oh, have to add RotS also).

Terrell
02-01-2006, 02:02 AM
Lucas hasn't endeared himself to Hollywood. He loathes the Hollywood system, stemming back to his days with THX1138 and American Graffiti when the studio took the films from him and cut parts of each film without his permission. So who can blame him. His comment at the People's Choice probably didn't help ROTS tech crew. All of this combined hasn't helped ILM in these awards. This looks like the Academy is giving George a big "up yours".

beaker
02-01-2006, 02:28 AM
Oh well! What can you do. The Oscars have become a joke.You do realize that the nominations are voted on by industry professionals, not the whole academy like the final award. So there are a bunch of very fx knowledgeable people picking the finalists. So I wouldn't exactly call their opinion a joke.

malducin
02-01-2006, 03:28 AM
So there are a bunch of very fx knowledgeable people picking the finalists. So I wouldn't exactly call their opinion a joke.

You're absolutely right.

But there have been quite a few controversies the last few years that makes people come up with conspiracy theories, in particular the nomination of Gladiator and non-nomination of Day After Tomorrow and the Matrix sequels. I don't know if it was here, or VFXWorld, ComingSoon or some such site that had an interview with a VFX branch member about the Matrix sequel non-nomination cauhgting everyone by surprise (speculated it missed it by a few votes) and the rest of the branch members being very mum about it. The only recent "owning up to it" was when there were only 2 noms in 1995 because of a proceduralism, the rule was ammended to try to always make it 3 nominations (1995 was the same year the VFX Branch came into being). I've also heard from people that a lot has to do with the actual Bakeoff, if the presentation is good or not (could it be the case many members haven't seen all films so all they go by is the bakeoff presentation hereby skewing the results?), the time requirements are a bit too tight for my taste though. The apperance of lack of transparency and rule ambiguity certainly helps fuel these conspiracies and controversies. It might not be the case the Branch has a bias or might be nutty, but the perception of it does hurt the cause.

Still the greatest sin is that this category (as well as the Sound ones) only get 3 noms instead of 5, and hearing Edlund arguing against 5 was a bit disheartening. You would think the Branch would push to have the same recognition as other categories. Maybe the new Branch president will improve things.

beaker
02-01-2006, 03:57 AM
But there have been quite a few controversies the last few years that makes people come up with conspiracy theories, in particular the nomination of Gladiator and non-nomination of Day After Tomorrow and the Matrix sequels.The latter two are known to by most in the industry. They were unfotunatly political because of lame decisions from the vfx soup snuffing out certain parties from submission of the nomination. It is unfortunate that the everyone was punished because of the bad decisions by 1 person, but it does happen. No idea about the Gladiator one (I was still fairly new to vfx industry at that time).

Digit
02-01-2006, 04:11 AM
I was about to say, too, that there is enough VFX films out each year to justify five nominations in the category. It never made sense to me that they did it this way.

Agree with previous poster who said that there is no film with perfect FX all the way through and to add to that that I think Wetas films have such a clear passion and energy behind them that it overides their flaws, and thats important too in my opinion.

revelaciones
02-01-2006, 09:46 AM
the non vfx nomination for the matrix reloaded and the matrix revolutions was something realy estrange, i think taht the mask of the nominations fallen in that moment in the 2004 awards matrix deserves the award

letssss gooooo KONG

MrPositive
02-01-2006, 11:13 AM
It's just sad that the guy who really made this award visible doesn't even receive an obligatory nomination for his final installment. Geesh. How the hell does Star Wars (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/showthread.php?t=461264&page=2&pp=30#) not get a nomination, mind-boggling.

vfx fan
02-01-2006, 03:55 PM
It's an absolute shock that "Revenge of the Sith" didn't get in -- I thought it was a dead lock. But I'm not too disappointed with the nominees this year. Not like I was in 2004 ("The Hulk" should've taken "Pirates of the Caribbean's" place).

"King Kong" was the obvious choice, no matter how bad much of the compositing was. I personally thought "Episode III" should've taken "Kong's" place, but that's wishful thinking on my part. Realistically, I thought "Episode III" would be in place of "War of the Worlds," but that obviously didn't happen. Sigh, at least "Sith" got a nod for Best Makeup.

I'm very glad "Narnia" got a nod though. I hope it wins, but since ILM was involved in that project, "Kong" will win instead.

I was also surprised that "Batman Begins" only got a nod for Best Cinematography. I thought it would also get one in Best Film Editing and Best Sound Mixing. "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory" should've gotten a nod for Best Art Direction, but only got one for its costume design, which I didn't think much of -- though Mike Teevee's T-shirt was pretty cool.

BalrogBlog
02-02-2006, 02:02 AM
The Oscars are a joke, plain and simple. It's no better than the MTV movie awards in my opinion. It's just a big popularity contest. ROTS won't win because it was an ass movie. It did have some amazing FX but it also had some of the worst compositing I've seen in a long time(floating storm trooper heads). Yes, King Kong and Narnia had horrible compositing in certain scenes as well. You must remember that they farm compositing out to smaller studios to get the job done and some of those smaller studios do terrible jobs. I stopped caring about who gets the Oscar a long time ago. It's not about a shiny award, it's about kick ass FX work.

jussing
02-02-2006, 07:38 AM
it also had some of the worst compositing I've seen in a long time
...
Yes, King Kong and Narnia had horrible compositing
Year after year, thread after thread, things like these always pop up, particularly around the Oscars....

And I just don't get this constant hatred towards the most spectacular visual effects we will ever see.... "worst", "horrible".... Just boggles my mind. Are people jealous?


- Jonas

thethule
02-02-2006, 01:25 PM
You do realize that the nominations are voted on by industry professionals, not the whole academy like the final award. So there are a bunch of very fx knowledgeable people picking the finalists. So I wouldn't exactly call their opinion a joke.

Actually, beaker, i would call them a joke purely for them omitting ROTS. LIke i said, i hated the films, but anyone with half a brain can see the technical achievements that were in the film. So forgive me for not taking these "professionals" opinions seriously. And also as you stated a few posts later, there are politcal factors that come into play as well as snubbing, sulking and maybe a few toys thrown out of prams too. Yes, very professional.


Marc

thethule
02-02-2006, 01:27 PM
Year after year, thread after thread, things like these always pop up, particularly around the Oscars....

And I just don't get this constant hatred towards the most spectacular visual effects we will ever see.... "worst", "horrible".... Just boggles my mind. Are people jealous?


- Jonas


Of course we are not jealous. King Kong rocked, but the comping during the dino stampede was pretty horrendous. And so were more than a few shots in Narnia. We are just being picky because this is our job, we have am eye for it. Doesnt mean we didnt think the rest of the thousands of shots were bad or that we hated the films.


Marc

jussing
02-02-2006, 02:10 PM
We are just being picky because this is our job, we have am eye for it.Of course, this I agree with entirely.

I would just think that people in the business like yourself would have an understanding for how astronomically complicated these shots are, what pressure people work under, and that being able to spot a flaw here and there is far from the same as calling the shots "horrible", "worst" or "horrendous". If someone thinks the dino stampede "sucked", I'd like to see his or her reel.

It sounds like people go to watch visual effects movies, just to be able to say "that sucked" when they can spot something that's not real.

Imperfection is not the same as sucking, that's all I'm saying.

Most movies don't go for 100%, they go for 95%, because that's enough for the audience. Just because visual effects people can spot that shots are only 99% and not 100%, does NOT mean the effects are bad.

And the visual effects of Kong were absolutely breathtaking. :)

- Jonas

thethule
02-02-2006, 02:32 PM
I If someone thinks the dino stampede "sucked", I'd like to see his or her reel.


- Jonas


That's not a valid argument. I can't write a novel, but i can tell when one is badly written. I can't act, but i can tell bad acting. The reasoning that people aren't entitled to an opinion just because they can do something is silly. Sure my reel may not have anything near King Kong quality, but then i don't have millions dollar budgets and a team of 200 working with me for 3 years. I agree that calling some of these shots "the worst" is a bit much, but you have to look at it in context. We have seen the breathtaking quality of work that WETA can do in the LOTR trilogy and in the other scenes in KK (the T-Rex fight and Empire State shots) which is why when a shot is bad, it REALLY stands out.


Marc

BalrogBlog
02-02-2006, 03:53 PM
If someone thinks the dino stampede "sucked", I'd like to see his or her reel.

It sounds like people go to watch visual effects movies, just to be able to say "that sucked" when they can spot something that's not real.



Don't be such a putz. We aren't talking about other peoples reel. This thread isn't about other peoples reel. You are saying that people can't point out bad compositing because they don't have King Kong on their reel. The compositing I've pointed out, IS BAD. The majority of the compositing is brilliant but there are some shots that took me out of the film completely. Stop getting so defensive. You are acting as if King Kong is your film. "It's breath taking". Is King Kong an amazing Visual FX achievement. DUHHHH! Of course it is. The stuff that was done right was done better than anything I've ever seen. But I'm not going to sit here and pretend that it was perfect. I wish it was.

jussing
02-02-2006, 04:06 PM
I can't write a novel, but i can tell when one is badly written. I can't act, but i can tell bad acting.Very fair point - I've used it myself quite a few times when ranting about movies in general. ;) (meaning, I preserve the right to think any Van Damme movie blows donkey balls, although I've yet to make a live action production of such professionality)

Still, I stand by my claim. If those effects "sucked", that means that the quality scale of visual effects goes virtually from "crap" to "suck", with very little room for "great", and I find that point of view quite ridiculous. Those effects were just a tad off, and not as good as the rest. But "horrendous" - gimme a break.

We've reached the "I think" vs "you think" standoff. Thank you for the debate.

- Jonas

jussing
02-02-2006, 04:08 PM
Don't be such a putz.Just nulling out the pessimism presented here - it's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it. ;)

Apoclypse
02-02-2006, 07:23 PM
You guys seem to have an overinflated opinion of the cg in rots. It wasn't that good. Yeah it was good in the sense that everything looked pretty. However, there was no heart and no character. You could say that effects were almost clinical in a sense, unlike the 3 nominees which used the cg as a way to further the story not just a way to put cool things in.

About the comments in regards to kong, i think you guys need to look at rots again and look at all the scenes with storm troopers in them and you are going to see som awful compositing and animation which with ILM experience is the real travesty. Also, I don't the past two won any for this category either. Which goes to show that using cg in the way these movies use it. is not what people want. The audience is not stupid (most of the time) they know eyecandy when they see it, and disregard it when they see something truly unique ( ep 1. lost to the Matrix). I personally think the cg was great but overrated over lit and overdone. My 2 cents. Let the pitch forks and villagers come......now.

thethule
02-02-2006, 07:42 PM
You guys seem to have an overinflated opinion of the cg in rots. It wasn't that good. Yeah it was good in the sense that everything looked pretty. However, there was no heart and no character. You could say that effects were almost clinical in a sense, unlike the 3 nominees which used the cg as a way to further the story not just a way to put cool things in.

About the comments in regards to kong, i think you guys need to look at rots again and look at all the scenes with storm troopers in them and you are going to see som awful compositing and animation which with ILM experience is the real travesty. Also, I don't the past two won any for this category either. Which goes to show that using cg in the way these movies use it. is not what people want. The audience is not stupid (most of the time) they know eyecandy when they see it, and disregard it when they see something truly unique ( ep 1. lost to the Matrix). I personally think the cg was great but overrated over lit and overdone. My 2 cents. Let the pitch forks and villagers come......now.

True, they had NO heart whatsoever, they were CG for the sake of it but thats not what is being judged. Whats being judged is the technical achievements.
I also agree that some scenes were overdone and overlit. My rods and cones didn't recover for a while, but overall, it was pretty damn fine!

jewalker
02-02-2006, 08:08 PM
True, they had NO heart whatsoever, they were CG for the sake of it but thats not what is being judged. Whats being judged is the technical achievements.


I have to disagree with this statement. From the Academy Awards rules:
http://www.oscars.org/78academyawards/rules/rule22.html

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.

From these considerations I would have to say that War of the Worlds should win.

mahmoudcg
02-02-2006, 10:44 PM
Kong is the one I think shouldn't win. It's the only one I saw that had such bad VFX that it completely took me out of the movie at times and kind of made me cringe. Of course the stuffed Aslan did the same to me in Narnia, lol, but that wasn't a VFX and most people didn't even notice it, it seems.

such bad vfx?:eek:
you are talking about vfx that the world has never seen like before, and you are not even criticizing, you decided its the worst and that it shouldn't win at all or even be watched
which film shall win then?
name one movie that had reached such vfx quality (except ROTK), or even a near quality
or achieved the number of cg shots achieved in kong
look at other secondry cg creatures in ROTS and those in kong and judge

are you comparing aslan to kong? or narnia to king kong?
aslan is also great, but kong is absolutely much better, better in everything, animation, facial expressions, fur
aslan's facial expressions compared to kong's are really poor and aslan's eyes looked somehow artificial. so if aslan took 2 years to appear just like that, then this is not an achievement at all and this is the true thing that should not be awarded

if kong's vfx are ugly, what shall we call the shot in narnia in the battle after the queen's death when soldiers started blurring and disappearing in a really bad compositing and final look that made me feel i'm watching a tv episode

you have to watch the 2 movies again and judge without biasing to sony pictures

FabioMSilva
02-02-2006, 11:05 PM
starwars and advent children are not in?

yeah the oscars this year suck!

hollywood this year is drunk.

beaker
02-03-2006, 12:24 AM
Actually, beaker, i would call them a joke purely for them omitting ROTS. LIke i said, i hated the films, but anyone with half a brain can see the technical achievements that were in the film. So forgive me for not taking these "professionals" opinions seriously.I agree with the nominations. They were actually my top 3 and ROTS was a close 4th. That's why they are "opinions".

People need to get over this stupid idea that simply because other people have different "opinions" then them, that they are wrong. Thats just ludicrious. God forbid someone thinks different then you. Blasphamy!

John-S
02-03-2006, 04:02 AM
No Star Wars VFX nomination was unthinkable to me. I have never would have dreamed...

Brettzies
02-03-2006, 05:03 AM
The only time I think they really got it right was with the LOTR films. Everything else has been a toss up between what's popular, what made money, and the hip film to vote for. Even the name of the award is vague. Something like Best Achievement in Visual Effects. Does that mean revolutionary, good, best, or what? Just finishing on time is an achievement.

All 3 are worthy, but even though I liked War of the Worlds' effects, I'm not sure what makes it stand above EpIII. Of all the prequels, EpIII is the most solid in terms of effects(well, maybe not that deformed emporer maks, but otherwise:thumbsup: ). I think they're doing themselves an injustice by not even nominating it. We'll see plenty of movies like War of the Worlds, Narnia, and Kong in the future, but we may never see another StarWars film, the films that pretty much kicked off this whole "revolution of effects."

Like the prequels or not, they opened up a lot of ground and inspiration for others to "take risks on." Kong himself may be the best achievement this year, and Aslon was great as well, but to not even nominate EpIII is pretty insulting. I would say War of the Worlds has the least "holes" in its effects followed by EpIII whereas Narnia and Kong, while having great achievements in creature effects, exhibit some pretty glaring mistakes as well.

There may not be a clear cut winner, but the definite loser is EpIII, and that's just sad when nothing sticks out as really being that much better then the rest in terms of being nominated. In terms of winning, it's always hard to justify one over the other.

Digit
02-03-2006, 05:13 AM
To say that King Kong shouldnt win because not every one of its VFX shots is perfect is the same as saying that Brokeback Mountain should win because its tiny number of effects shots were all spot on. Crazy talk!

Brettzies
02-03-2006, 05:27 AM
You do realize that the nominations are voted on by industry professionals, not the whole academy like the final award. So there are a bunch of very fx knowledgeable people picking the finalists. So I wouldn't exactly call their opinion a joke.I would(call their opinion a joke). Vfx people are some of the most cynical, opinionated, and biased people I've ever experienced working with. Throw in arrogance, politics, and insecurity, and you have a recipe for disaster. Sometimes I wonder if they actually like or even watch movies. Bake off. Ha!

Nemoid
02-03-2006, 05:28 AM
Kong in itself was killer sfx. its a sin that compositing wasn't good. but kong as digital creature was amazing.

same for the Lion in narnia . I loved it

as a movie i liked more Narnia.

jeremybirn
02-03-2006, 05:30 AM
Vfx people are some of the most cynical, opinionated, and biased people I've ever experienced working with. Throw in arrogance, politics, and insecurity, and you have a recipe for disaster. Sometimes I wonder if they actually like or even watch movies.

Whereas, people who post on cgtalk, they are all much more reasonable and open-minded than those vfx goons.

-jeremy

leigh
02-03-2006, 06:12 AM
Sometimes I wonder if they actually like or even watch movies.

I often wonder the same thing, especially when I read threads for film releases here on CGTalk. Some people are so negative about films that I can't understand why they're going to the theatres, let alone visiting and posting on web forums about stuff they clearly hate so much. I guess some people just thrive on negativity :shrug:

Brettzies
02-03-2006, 06:12 AM
Whereas, people who post on cgtalk, they are all much more reasonable and open-minded than those vfx goons.-jeremyDDDDDDDdddaaaaaamn. Voltron doesn't dance, he blows sh!t up.

Kai01W
02-03-2006, 11:24 AM
I often wonder the same thing, especially when I read threads for film releases here on CGTalk. Some people are so negative about films that I can't understand why they're going to the theatres, let alone visiting and posting on web forums about stuff they clearly hate so much. I guess some people just thrive on negativity :shrug:

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that some people think the "overall" quality of "popular" movies declined over the last years, which maybe has something to do with the fact that the western movie biz has some economical problems that lead to more and more sticking to what studios think has no risks (too many remakes of foreign movies / old classics / sequels / harmless stuff etc.).
In this respect I was positively surprised about the nominations for best movie this year, and its quite interesting to point out that they were rather small (I would not say "independent") productions. Not a single blockbuster among them and quite right so.
Maybe things are about to change again. Would be nice.

-k

beaker
02-03-2006, 03:52 PM
In this respect I was positively surprised about the nominations for best movie this year, and its quite interesting to point out that they were rather small (I would not say "independent") productions. Not a single blockbuster among them and quite right so.
Maybe things are about to change again. Would be nice.The best movie is rarely a big blockbuster. Usually only 1 of the nominations is actually a blockbuster, like all the LOTR movies (no idea why). In recent years Titanic and Gladiator are the rare exceptions (no one actually thought Titanic was going to make any money before it came out).

http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1138984952704


Edit: Crap, I just went and read the list I just posted, ROTK also won recently. Nevermind, I'm wrong :)

kmest
02-03-2006, 09:05 PM
that list realy can prove that hollywood is realy into not giving the oscar to ILM...sure they have theire reasons and we know why....lucas is against most of hollywood laws,,the way the studio owners think,the way the treat with movies,ets...
i was damn sure that starwars EPIII will win this year,not only because of its the last of the series and honoring the things they done in the previus two,but for this that i couldnt see any bad shots in it,,,,every single shot was heavily workd on...the amount of new technical advansments and the artistic work done in every single second of it......it was way better and heavier than every movie this year,even king kong.......
its not the first time oscar did this,they even didnt put matrix 2 and 3 in the list of 13 movies for the oscar nominated......
oscar has no intrest for me any more.....cause its changed to a tool for some studio owners to force the indusrty to head were they want


for the movies nominated,i think WOTW should win,it was realy stylised and well done....king kong was exelent but it had some realy creapy compositings and 2 or 3 shots of realy bad hair renders....the city was not good enough for an exelent 3d creature like that.....narnia was perfect too but i've seen the development of talking animals for years....didnt have any new thing for me..but it was well done

beaker
02-03-2006, 10:55 PM
that list realy can prove that hollywood is realy into not giving the oscar to ILM...sure they have theire reasons and we know why....lucas is against most of hollywood laws,,the way the studio owners think,the way the treat with movies,ets...You really need to read the whole thread on how vfx is picked and why Matrix sequels were not nominated. Only vfx professionals pick the nominations, not the rest of hollywood. There are no studio owners at the bake off.

Also probably half the people picking the nominations worked on the original Star Wars movies and are ex-ILM employees and most were easily 40+ years in age.

You do realize that WOTW is a ILM fx movie?

Lique
02-04-2006, 02:42 AM
WOWT has good fx, but to me it's nothing new, aliens + tripods spaceships. Aliens that appeared only for a few shots (in rather dark lit scenes) and tripods that can be seen from a distance most of the time throughout the movie. Compare that with 2 hours of great performance from kong, and the scenes with the dinos, the level of interaction between kong and trex. I think they are just on different levels.

Terrell
02-04-2006, 08:58 PM
WOWT has good fx, but to me it's nothing new, aliens + tripods spaceships.

Absolutely nothing is new or original nowadays. You don't judge whether it's new or original. You judge the work, the quality of the work, and the time, effort, and difficulty it took to achieve the effects.

i was damn sure that starwars EPIII will win this year,not only because of its the last of the series and honoring the things they done in the previus two,but for this that i couldnt see any bad shots in it,,,,every single shot was heavily workd on...the amount of new technical advansments and the artistic work done in every single second of it

Which is even more amazing when you consider that ILM had no help. They did it all on their own. Plus, they had to create over 2000 effects shots in a fairly limited time period for that amount of effects. Usually when one company has to do that much work all by themselves, in such a length of time, you have bad shots in many places because they didn't have time to tweak every shot like they do on many smaller effects films. Phenomenal work, second to none, regardless of the lack of a nomination.

I'm not into conspiracy theories, but it does make you wonder if the FX community hates Lucas that much.

Also probably half the people picking the nominations worked on the original Star Wars movies and are ex-ILM employees and most were easily 40+ years in age.

You mean like Edlund, who left Lucas on bad terms? ;)

Terrell
02-04-2006, 09:06 PM
Truth by told, all the companies who worked on all the potential nominees did fantastic work. It just comes down to whose work was better, and we can argue for days on that.

malducin
02-05-2006, 07:00 AM
The latter two are known to by most in the industry. They were unfotunatly political because of lame decisions from the vfx soup snuffing out certain parties from submission of the nomination. It is unfortunate that the everyone was punished because of the bad decisions by 1 person, but it does happen.

Yeah it sucks. But it does point that even Branch members, no matter how professional, they are still human. And in those cases might have unjustly not given a chance to the projects because of politics. One reason we have these conspiracies and debates. If they have already "snubbed" a project for whatever reason, what is there to prevent from happening again? And again Lucas didn't exactly endear himself at the People's Choice Awards. Although I suspect it was something else at work here and not an actual snub.

And from interviews and what I hear from friends sometimes a lot depends on the actual presentation (sometimes it seems lots of the branch memberd haven't watched all 7 films so a lot comes down to the time in the stage). Plus a lot many other things.

No idea about the Gladiator one (I was still fairly new to vfx industry at that time).

Not really a controversy like DAT and the MAtrix sequels on being in the bakeoff and nominated films. The problem was kinda the perception after it won. After all the other bakeoff films were Dinosaur, X-Men, The Grinch, Cast Away, Perfect Storm and Hollow Man (the last 2 trhe other two nominated films).

The problem was (and kinda still is) that Academy rules can be interpreted as "nominate the BEST FILM with vfx" as opposed to "nominate the film with the BEST VFX" which is a big diference, especially if there are no guidelines.

It's just sad that the guy who really made this award visible doesn't even receive an obligatory nomination for his final installment. Geesh. How the hell does Star Wars not get a nomination, mind-boggling.

That is really the worst idea there can be. A project should be nominated because it's perceived to be the best artistically and technically. Not because it should be "obligatory" to give it to someone that deserves it (and actually that seems to be the attitude towards PJ nowadays).

Ep. 3 should not get a nomination because it's Star Wars, because ILM hasn't won in a while, or because it's "owed" to Lucas for doing much for the industry. No it should be nominated because you feel it was one of the best projects of the year regardless of other aspects. Personally I think it should ahve been.

beaker
02-05-2006, 07:14 AM
Which is even more amazing when you consider that ILM had no help. They did it all on their own. Plus, they had to create over 2000 effects shots in a fairly limited time period for that amount of effects.Quick note, there were only 400 shots, not 2000.

Still amazing work for a movie shot, finished vfx and in the theaters in 7 months.

jussing
02-05-2006, 07:50 AM
Quick note, there were only 400 shots, not 2000.

Still amazing work for a movie shot, finished vfx and in the theaters in 7 months.
:) I think there's a misunderstanding here, the original poster was talking about Episode III, I think you're thinking about War of the Worlds.

(quoting Cinefex: 2,151 effects shots over the course of two years)

Cheers,
- Jonas

mattepntr
02-08-2006, 12:38 AM
This is just my 2 cents on the subject, so take it for what it is...

I wasn't surprised when ROTS didn't make the final 3. But I don't
blame the artists at ILM in any way. I worked there for 4 years,
and a more talented, dedicated professional FX crew would be
very hard to find.
But I truly thought ROTS was one of the ugliest looking films I've
ever seen. It was horribly art directed, without a shred of taste
or even a rudimentary sense of basic shot design.
And I know from working on the other prequels, that the CG artists
are simply not allowed to disagree with the art directors in any way.
Once the designs are approved by George, that's it. Which is why
ROTS and WOTW can have such radically different quality levels
when the work is done by essentially the same artists.
While I respect and appreciate the work it took to realize the shots,
the vast majority of them fail in the design dept. And I'm not the only
one who feels that way.
But Kudos to all my friends at ILM for their nominations for Narnia and
WOTW! Personally, I'm rooting for WOTW, a true breakthrough in
gritty CG realism. I'd love to see em take a statue for that.
If any of the prequels deserved an Oscar, it was Phantom Menace.
2000 shots with nary a clunker in the bunch. No one has ever achieved
that- before or since.

Again, just IMHO,
Rick

Brettzies
02-08-2006, 01:11 AM
Personally, I'm rooting for WOTW, a true breakthrough in
gritty CG realism. I'd love to see em take a statue for that.I tend to agree with you from that standpoint. I do think WotW was very consistent in its presentation of vfx, meaning, you only knew they had to be fx because they were frickin' aliens coming out of the ground. The grittiness and integration was top notch and one of the things I remember most about the film. I do completely disagree with you on EpIII's "look," but that's just personal taste. And, I think it should have been nominated, but then it's like, what do you take out? This is probably one of the toughest years to be a vfx movie. Maybe they should determine the nominees by up to 5 or less.

CGTalk Moderation
02-08-2006, 01:11 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.