Ratatouille and Beowulf Make Oscar VFX Long List

[P_T]

I know there are visual effects in Ratatouille but I think they're simplified and cartoony, like the cooking with wine fire at the beginning and water splash when Skinner fell into the river.

No offense to the vfx artists but Ratatouille shouldn't be in that list, I think there are other films, like FF4: Silver Surfer, which are more deserving.

[heney]

^^Well I'm shocked to hear anyone on these boards say something like that. 3D animated films have become 2 hr vfx shots. Congrats to both Ratatouille and Beowolf and best of luck to them both.

If I had to guess the short list, I'd bet on Pirates, Transformers, and either Spiderman or Harry Potter.

[P_T]

^^Well I'm shocked to hear anyone on these boards say something like that. 3D animated films have become 2 hr vfx shots. What do all the other films in that list have in common? They all try to achieve photorealism whether they're going for an "invisible" CG effect or something larger than life like the Transformers.

I can understand Beowulf being a 2 hour vfx shots but Ratatouille? As pretty as it looks, I still think it doesn't belong in that list. How about Surf's Up with its beautiful CG ocean?

[FabioMSilva]

BOURNE had VFX??:eek:

wow they must be really good cuz i didnt noticed them

[oktawu]

"BOURNE had VFX??"

http://www.dneg.com/projects/the_bourne_ultimatum_65.html

a load of em'...
dont we just love invisible effects

[soulburn3d]

What do all the other films in that list have in common? They all try to achieve photorealism whether they're going for an "invisible" CG effect or something larger than life like the Transformers.

I can understand Beowulf being a 2 hour vfx shots but Ratatouille? As pretty as it looks, I still think it doesn't belong in that list. What about Surf's Up with its beautiful CG ocean?

Well, The argument to be made is that a visual effects artist is supposed to create effects that are seamless with the world they're in. So for live action films, the effects need to look photoreal. For an animated feature, the effects need to be stylized in the same way as the animated work they exist in. From a nuts and bolts perspective, the tools and techniques used to produce the fx are almost identical. So it comes down to a definition war. Do fx have to be in a live action film? And what constitutes a live action film? Was something like 300 a live action film when 90% of what you see on the screen was created digitally? If you reproject every single live action element onto cars in a 3d world, is that an animation or live action? Is mocap animation? With computers, all these nice black and white cocnepts have become grey. And it's up to the oscars to decide how they'd like to define the rules for their competition.

- Neil

[ThirdEye]

I know there are visual effects in Ratatouille but I think they're simplified and cartoony, like the cooking with wine fire at the beginning and water splash when Skinner fell into the river.

Water splash? Fire? Have we watched the same movie? Ratatouille was PACKED with incredible effects, the sequence in the sewers alone was worth an Oscar.

[P_T]

Water splash? Fire? Have we watched the same movie? Ratatouille was PACKED with incredible effects, the sequence in the sewers alone was worth an Oscar.Yes I agree the rain/sewer looks great but then how come Surf's Up is not also in the list? The water effect is incredible for an animated film.

So it comes down to a definition war.Indeed, it's a bit like the mocap vs animation thing. If some animation house isn't happy about the inclusion of mocap in the animation category, I'd say VFX houses can argue that integrating CG effect into live action is a lot harder than integrating it into a full CG film. No need for camera tracking, roto and all the other processes needed to make the CG element fit seamlessly into the live action plate. That's where my argument come from.

[eirenicon]

I know there are visual effects in Ratatouille but I think they're simplified and cartoony, like the cooking with wine fire at the beginning and water splash when Skinner fell into the river.
Um... isn't Ratatouille made out of visual effects? How is the water splash any more a visual effect than Skinner himself? If you added a CG rat to a live action film it would be considered a visual effect, wouldn't it?

[Romanthony]

I think what it really comes down to is the talent behind it and believability. Notice that there's a difference between believability and realism. Believability is the broader, more appropriate word to use for the success of any film, visual effects or not, cartoony or real. Which is why I'm stunned that Beowulf is there. The eyes were dead and never moved, even when the voice behind it was raging at the top of their lungs. All the characters looked stiff and awkward in the faces, all the time. There was not one second in that 2 hour movie that I wasn't 100% aware that I was watching a fake special effects movie. But I suppose they were just going for technological breakthoughs then.

[robcat2075]

If photo-realism is the benchmark then the blood in "300" surely failed. It looked like it had been painted onto the film as an after thought. But I suspect that was intentional to suggest the look of a graphic novel.

Likewise the effects in "Ratatouille" probably are not failures at pure reality but successes at a "look"?

Perhaps the look of the food was what got the VFX crowd's attention.

[Trenox]

Transformers should win hands down. Terrible movie though :D

[Boone]

Just hand the damn thing to Transformers already!:scream:

[ThE_JacO]

I know there are visual effects in Ratatouille but I think they're simplified and cartoony, like the cooking with wine fire at the beginning and water splash when Skinner fell into the river.

No offense to the vfx artists but Ratatouille shouldn't be in that list, I think there are other films, like FF4: Silver Surfer, which are more deserving.

You clearly confuse a vfx oscar with what is called effects in CG.
Going by your parameters (only water and fire and similar things are effects), then davy jones should also not count for anything toward an oscar nomination.

Ratatouille was crammed with things that fall into the vfx oscar category.

[P_T]

You clearly confuse a vfx oscar with what is called effects in CG.
Going by your parameters (only water and fire and similar things are effects), then davy jones should also not count for anything toward an oscar nomination.

Ratatouille was crammed with things that fall into the vfx oscar category.Ugh... It's just a bloody example mate, besides, if you count the characters and the environment as well then only CG films should be in the list just because of the sheer volume of "vfx" contained.

And like I asked before, what about Surf's Up? Isn't that film full of great effects as well?

Indeed, it's a bit like the mocap vs animation thing. If some animation house isn't happy about the inclusion of mocap in the animation category, I'd say VFX houses can argue that integrating CG effect into live action is a lot harder than integrating it into a full CG film. No need for camera tracking, roto and all the other processes needed to make the CG element fit seamlessly into the live action plate.

[soulburn3d]

And like I asked before, what about Surf's Up? Isn't that film full of great effects as well?

I assume surfs up was not left off the list because it didn't qualify, it was a good film and had some very cool effects (especially the waves), it just didn't make it on the list because not everyone is going to make the list. The oscars are a political organization. Every person has a different opinion. Every person has different preferences. Every person has different friends. Every person has different agendas. It's certainly not the first great fx that's been left off the list, and certainly won't be the last. Sadly, that's just the way life goes.

- Neil

[iskon]

Yeah, Transformers or Pirates are my favorites.

[noizFACTORY]

Just the way the food looked so yum and edible in ratatouille alone is enough to club it into this year's vfx oscars list (imho, of course). The interaction between the knives and the food, all the simulation involved in cutting, whipping and what not was pretty novel and realistic I think.
And yes, its sad they left Surf's Up out. It had some great waves indeed and when I read in an article how they did that, I found it quite an interesting approach. And though I haven't watched Bourne yet, its good to know (from these boards) that it had invisible effects. Somehow to me those always seem more interesting and credible (for the lack of a better word) than run of the mill sfx. But again, every movie has its own style and demands after all. I think even Zodiac had some good invisible effects. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

[playmesumch00ns]

I don't like their inclusion here personally. There's already the animated feature oscar. The aims of VFX work (in common usage the term VFX does not include animated films) are very different from computer graphics for an animated feature. I don't wish to denigrate anything pixar et al have done, it's just that they're two different things.

[leigh]

I don't like their inclusion here personally. There's already the animated feature oscar. The aims of VFX work (in common usage the term VFX does not include animated films) are very different from computer graphics for an animated feature. I don't wish to denigrate anything pixar et al have done, it's just that they're two different things.

I agree. I find this list a little confusing in that regard... perhaps the rules have changed, but then personally I think they should change the name from VFX to CGI or something similar.

[P_T]

...but then personally I think they should change the name from VFX to CGI or something similar.But practical effects like pyrotechnic, miniature set, etc. are also part of VFX right?

[soulburn3d]

I don't like their inclusion here personally. There's already the animated feature oscar.

It's amazing the number of people who don't want animated films spreading into other awards. People feel animated films shouldn't be allowed to run for best picture. People feel they shouldn't go for visual effects awards. What about costuming? What about best writing? Is writing for an animated feature that different from writing for a live action feature? What about art direction? Should foreign films not be considered for best film because they already have a category?

Everyone is certainly allowed their own opinion, but my personal opinion is that a film should be considered a film, whether it's live action, documentary, foreign film, animated film, etc, and should be allowed to compete in any category who's job purpose, result or skillset is the same.

- Neil

[Venkman]

At first I was confused a little bit about the inclusion of Ratatouille, but then I thought of some of the more breath taking scenes in animated movies from the past (the demon fight in Princess Mononoke, etc).

I just watched the Incredibles again, and I'm pretty sure the makers of that movie had sections that they considered to be "VFX heavy". Compare scenes of the parents talking to the chase sequence with Dash. That's definitely a different type of shot, and they have staff specifically for doing explosions, particles, and energy beams.

Once I really thought about it, Ratatouille was no different. Some of the FX heavy scenes in that film had to be the cooking. It really did look convincing and that is no small feat. People know food and water just about as well as they do people, and I think CG food has its own "uncanny valley", which Pixar managed quite well. It's just that Ratatouille had a lot of invisible FX. I was impressed when uncooked spaghetti hit the water just right.

Of course, when you are up against the maelstrom battle sequence in Pirates, and Optimus Prime whooping some ass, I think competition gets fierce. ;)

[Venkman]

I think even Zodiac had some good invisible effects. Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Zodiac was very FX heavy when shooting exterior neighborhoods and city blocks. They brought that time period back to life and most people didn't even notice- including me- until I saw a big article in cinefex!

[P_T]

Should foreign films not be considered for best film because they already have a category?

...result or skillset is the same.

- NeilWell see that's the thing, I don't consider VFX and CG animation to have the same skillset. As I mentioned before, there's a bunch of VFX skillsets/professions that aren't used in CG animation from camera tracking to greenscreen to painting out wires, then there are practical effects which are also part of VFX AFAIK. The result is also totally different IMO.

About foreign films... Well, the Oscar is an American award after all, it's cool enough that they acknowledge foreign films.

[Venkman]

Well see that's the thing, I don't consider VFX and CG animation to have the same skillset. As I mentioned before, there's a bunch of VFX skillsets/professions that aren't used in CG animation from camera tracking to greenscreen to painting out wires, then there are practical effects which are also part of VFX AFAIK. The result is also totally different IMO.


That's just semantics. The skillsets vary from shot to shot within a movie. How does one compare the Transformers shots with the shots in Bourne? By the number of polygons? By the amount of "dazzle" in the shot?

How do you compare "Sunshine" and "The water horse"?

[soulburn3d]

Well see that's the thing, I don't consider VFX and CG animation to have the same skillset. As I mentioned before, there's a bunch of VFX skillsets/professions that aren't used in CG animation from camera tracking to greenscreen to painting out wires, then there are practical effects which are also part of VFX AFAIK. The result is also totally different IMO.

I strongly disagree. As someone who has done both fx for live action and animated features, there's a tremendous amount of overlap.

For example, while you don't need to paint out wires, you generally have a team of people painting out rendering artifacts, or painting in stuff that is just too costly to render (frame by frame). In the comp your frequently have to make masks and mattes by hand, animating them frame by frame to mask out parts of your image. You produce multiple layers of content which a compositor has to assemble, and color correct. Seperate elements from library's are combined with stuff that was rendered "in camera". Once you have the basic comp set up, you have to use all the tricks that you'd use in a live action film, the only difference is you're receiving completely computer generated plates instead of elements filmed against greenscreen. Textures frequently start from real photos that are then modified to match the look of the film. I've even done simple camera tracking before in comp because it was faster to do that then to go back and try and rerender an element.

And anyways, back in the days of the original king kong, you didn't have teams of people doing match move or paint/roto, it was all incamera with rear projections. And yet, does that mean the ape in king kong is not visual effects?

I don't know your background, but if you haven't already, you should try doing some fx work for both live action and animated and see the overlap for yourself. It's probably something you need to do first hand to truly understand the similarities.

- Neil

[vfx fan]

Of the ones listed, the only one I can really say I was truly blown away by was Transformers. After how amazed I was with Pirates 2, I felt underwhelmed by Pirates 3, so I'm skeptical about seeing that go anywhere beyond the list of 7.

However, I thought Spider-Man 3 was, from an fx standpoint, very impressive. Perhaps that could make it into the final three. As a movie, though, it was definitely several steps below the other two.

I think The Golden Compass has a good chance. The only thing I didn't like were the animals (particularly the polar bears -- they reminded me too much of the Coca-Cola bears). On the other hand, the images of the city and the scenes with the blimp were magnificent. I also loved that carriage with the electric wheels.

Also glad to see Evan Almighty get recognized. It takes the cake for best CG water of the year (last year, Poseidon had the best). I thought the film itself was rather underrated, too.

Harry Potter 5 was an interesting case. I was not impressed with it the way I was with the other films. While the fx were technologically great and mostly realistic (though Sirius in the fireplace looked cheaper this time around than in Goblet of Fire), they just didn't have much of the awe that was present in the other films, with the exception of maybe the battle between Dumbledore and Voldemort.

All I can say is that I was absolutely disappointed in Beowulf in every way except for Alan Silvestri's music. I actually thought the technology in Beowulf was used much better in The Polar Express. I suppose I just expected more from Robert Zemeckis. I miss Zemeckis and his invisible fx shows. He hasn't been the same since Cast Away.

I was disappointed that Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer didn't make it into this long list -- that had some really impressive work in it, and as a movie, it was nice, light-hearted entertainment that had no intention of being like Spider-Man.

As for the rest, Bourne and Live Free or Die Hard had some good stuff, but nothing really special for my tastes.

I haven't seen I Am Legend, yet. I probably will Wednesday, but I heard and read that a lot of the fx were dodgy.

As far as the rest, I haven't seen them yet, either.

EDIT: As for the inclusion of animated films into the vfx category, I don't really see the big deal. It's happened before -- remember The Nightmare Before Christmas? I think that should be considered just as much an animated film as Ratatouille.

[P_T]

I strongly disagree. As someone who has done both fx for live action and animated features, there's a tremendous amount of overlap.

- NeilFair enough, I get your points but what about the strive towards the photorealism as opposed to having a stylised/cartoony look? Unless it's a photorealistic animation like Beowulf, surely you can get away with a lot more in a stylised/cartoony render than when you try to match a live action plate, not to mention when trying to make CG element interact with the human actor in a believable way as opposed to having two CG elements interact with each other.

Anyway, I just think this whole thing is as you said earlier, hollywood politics. I've never heard of anyone here caring enough about animated films having great VFX to even suggest it should be nominated in that category, all I heard is how great the animation and story is. Noone probably even thought about it before this thread.

I also got this feeling that if the film mentioned wasn't Pixar's Ratatouille, perhaps the response here would've been quite different. :scream:

[soulburn3d]

what about the strive towards the photorealism as opposed to having a stylised/cartoony look? Unless it's a photorealistic animation like Beowulf, surely you can get away with a lot more in a stylised/cartoony render than when you try to match a live action plate, not to mention when trying to make CG element interact with the human actor in a believable way as opposed to having two CG elements interact with each other.

I almost find it harder to do stuff that's stylized, because at least with photoreal you generally have a known target you're aiming for. :)

Although certainly films like Beowulf, 300 or the last 3 star wars films have many of the complexities of an animated feature, because even if the look is photoreal, you're trying to make something that no one has seen before.

Anyways, if you honestly believe that a particular effect looks easier to create, then that's fine, don't vote for it. That's what the oscar is supposed to be for, giving the award to the film that has the best/most impressive/most complex effects. I just think it's wrong to discard animated features based on the fact they're animated. Discarding a film because the fx didn't impress you is what oscar giving is all about :)

Noone probably even thought about it before this thread.

Actually, this has been an ongoing discussion for years and years in the industry, and I'm sure in the academy as well.

I also got this feeling that if the film mentioned wasn't Pixar's Ratatouille, perhaps the response here would've been quite different. :scream:

Maybe, although not from me, I obviously have a special place in my heart for the Pixar films, but good fx are good fx, no matter what company made em, and no matter whether the film is good or bad.

- Neil

[noizFACTORY]

I think since such a broad generalized category as Visual Effects would inevitably include both practical effects and special effects (for animated and non animated movies), it was only a matter of time before something like Ratatouille too was included in this.

And no, I don't think people here are biased (fanboys if thats what you are implying) to feel the way they do about a Pixar film's inclusion. Had it been any other show with an equally top notch work, people would have still supported its inclusion and some would have objected to it.

Like I said earlier, Surf's Up water was really good at making the whole film more believable but may be it didn't cut much ice with the oscars panel. Or may be they'd seen enough of water in pirates and almighty.

And I also agree with someone who posted above (I guess it was soulburn) about not letting animated films compete for the best feature category and restricting it to its own kind. But maybe thats an altogether different debate. Or may be it'll be kinda weird having something like Ratatouille compete with a No Country for the best film. And maybe when it does happen for some animated film, we really won't give a rat's a*s (no puns intended there) if it were animated or live action as long as its truly deserving.

[Oddgit]

I think there is a whole team at Pixar that is pretty stoked about their nomination. They have a huge VFX department there. Imagine if you had a button that took out all of the FX from a pixar movie assuming the actors and sets were real. They would be pretty bland. All of the rain, the fluid sim, the fake food! All were fantastic, now add stuff like the fur and cloth its even more impressive! I always felt that the best animated picture nomination went to the animation with the best story, not the one that looks the best, or i hope it works that way. The best VFX nod should go to the one with the best FX be it digital practical or a mix of both from Bourne to Ratatouille and all of the variations in between.

[playmesumch00ns]

It's amazing the number of people who don't want animated films spreading into other awards. People feel animated films shouldn't be allowed to run for best picture. People feel they shouldn't go for visual effects awards. What about costuming? What about best writing? Is writing for an animated feature that different from writing for a live action feature? What about art direction? Should foreign films not be considered for best film because they already have a category?

Everyone is certainly allowed their own opinion, but my personal opinion is that a film should be considered a film, whether it's live action, documentary, foreign film, animated film, etc, and should be allowed to compete in any category who's job purpose, result or skillset is the same.

- Neil

I didn't explain myself correctly. I'd have absolutely no problem whatsoever with seeing Ratatouille up for best picture. It is, after all, a motion picture. Whether it's animated or live action is neither here nor there.

Visual Effects is about putting computer-generated elements into a live-action frame. It's a completely different thing. By your reasoning, my company should be up for best make-up for Voldemort's nose replacement in Harry Potter.

[soulburn3d]

I didn't explain myself correctly. I'd have absolutely no problem whatsoever with seeing Ratatouille up for best picture. It is, after all, a motion picture. Whether it's animated or live action is neither here nor there. Visual Effects is about putting computer-generated elements into a live-action frame.

Well, that is your definition of visual effects (Note: It's also wikipedia's definition). That is not my definition of visual effects though, and apparently it's not the academy's either, otherwise they would not have placed ratatoille or beowulf in the long list.

You may be shocked to know that many people's definition of a "motion picture" does not include animation.

By your reasoning, my company should be up for best make-up for Voldemort's nose replacement in Harry Potter.

Yes, I totally agree, your company should be eligible for best makeup, assuming you define makeup as changing the appearance of an individual, regardless of tools. You guys did a great job as well. :)

- Neil

[SimonPickard]

Hello all,

What scares me about having anim features up for vfx awards is the impact that has on the "Best animated feature". Take something like HappyFeet.... All the moaning about it used Mocap, etc. From what I could make out the reasoning for HappyFeet winning was that Best animated feature isn't just about animation, it's story, it's the rendering, it's the VFX, it's the whole PACKAGE.

Fair enough.. but then how can you be entered for the same thing twice?

If they want to start going down this road my answer would be to remove the Best animated feature catagory. Then let animated features fight it out on a level field with everything else.


Regards,
Simon

[soulburn3d]

All the moaning about it used Mocap, etc. From what I could make out the reasoning for HappyFeet winning was that Best animated feature isn't just about animation, it's story, it's the rendering, it's the VFX, it's the whole PACKAGE.

Ya, that's one of the issues. I would argue that while something like animated feature should consider the whole package, personally I'm more inclined to vote in the vfx category on a film that has the best vfx, regardless of how bad the movie is. However, lots of people actually just vote for the vfx film they liked the most. Or others vote based on how the vfx supports the story, so if there's no story, a film won't win even though the fx by themselves were impressive.

- Neil

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.