View Full Version : BAFTA Nominations in...

01 January 2004, 10:46 AM

Selected noms:

Short animation

Dads Dead
Dear Sweet Emma
Jojo in the Stars

Visual Effects

Big Fish
Kill Bill
The Return of the King
Master and Commander
Pirates of the Caribbean

Best film

Big Fish
Cold Mountain
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Lost in Translation
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

Best director

(David Lean award for achievement in direction)
Tim Burton - Big Fish
Anthony Minghella - Cold Mountain
Peter Jackson - The Return of the King
Sofia Coppola - Lost in Translation
Peter Weir - Master and Commander

Costume design

Cold Mountain
Girl with a Pearl Earring
The Return of the King
Master and Commander
Pirates of the Caribbean

Production design

Big Fish
Cold Mountain
Girl with a Pearl Earring
The Return of the King
Master and Commander


Cold Mountain
Girl with a Pearl Earring
The Return of the King
Lost in Translation
Master and Commander

vfx fan
01 January 2004, 05:34 PM
Geesh, nominating "Kill Bill" for Best Visual Effects is the biggest joke since "Gladiator" got nominated for the same category. And I think "Hulk" diserved a nod for Best Visual Effects.

Still, it's nice to see that "Big Fish" got nominated for such a category for the first time. :)

01 January 2004, 06:08 PM
I thought Gladiator had some pretty cool visual effects...

Anyhoo, these nominations are kind funny... they are all the same films over and over again (well, almost) :)

01 January 2004, 06:43 PM
I'd like to see how many ROTK picks up.

01 January 2004, 08:14 PM
You have to understand how the BAFTA work which is kinda th opposite of the Academy. The BAFTA VFX nods are selected by the membership at large, but the winner is chosen by a panel of experts. Which is why sometimes animated films like Shrek and A Bug's Life are nominated for VFX as well.

01 January 2004, 10:15 PM
vfx fan....did you attualy watch Gladiator?

the bit when the enter the colosseum and the camera go's 360 was flawless :thumbsup:

vfx fan
01 January 2004, 09:05 PM
I didn't mean that "Gladiator" had bad vfx, but they were nowhere near groundbreaking.

And at the (American) Academy, "Gladiator" got nominated by "professionals" who should know better.

01 January 2004, 09:32 PM
Ok - I don't want to start a flame session here - but what are you talking about?

Gladiator, IMHO, is a top movie with some seamless VFX - the battle scenes, the arena fights, the face replacements. I'm sure a bunch of folks on these boards rate it too: the vfx were always, *always* in service to the story - and what a well told story!

It's a huge insult to the VFX crew to say that it was nominated by - in your words - "professionals" who should know better.

You're entitled to your opinion of course, but I have *no idea* where you are coming from! :shrug:

01 January 2004, 11:33 PM
OK without ntaking sides this is where the controversy comes from. First the problem is the ambiguos rules of these sort of awards. They usually are interpreted as Best Film with VFX as opposed to Best VFX in a Film, which makes a huge difference. Also ambiguos is the fact that VFX should support the story. Now take something like Hollowman, most definately you need lost of VFX just to support that film (or story), nevermind the particularities of the screenplay. By that kind of interpretation all scifi and fantasy films should be disqualified since they need lots of VFX and besides scifi and fantasy don't have good stories anyway (an argument usually thrown at scifi and fantasy literature).

With this in mind lets look at that year. The 7 finalists for the bake-off were: Dinosaur, The Grinch, Hollowman, Perfect Storm, Gladiator, X-Men and Castaway. I guess most people would agree Hollowman and Perfect Storm are VFX juggernauts. So the argument becomes: Gladiator had some fantastic and superbly executed VFX (though minimal, something like 88 shots), but should it have gotten the final nomination spot instead of something else that had more extensive VFX?

So it all depends. Awards should definately recognize superb achievements even if they were more or less stantard or not as innovative (whatever that means) as other candidates? You could argue Castaway also used seamless VFX to support a story or that Dinosaur or the Grinch had more tech innovation or execution. Regardless it depends what criteria the VFX Branch used and how that meets your expectations.

As far as winning that's a totally different matter as the way the winners is chosen is a bit funky to say the least ;-).

And that's why Kill Bill might be even more controversial. After all the handful of VFX shots were just things like the wire removals and the retro cheezy miniatures. Lots of fun but hardly what a lot of people would consider best VFX. I guess whoever does string held UFO and sock puppets will get a nomination next ;-). A lot of the work might have been misconsidered, a lot of it would fall under makeup FX (all that blood and dismembering), though practical special effects might be considered, though usually when coupled with VFX (think of work like done by Neil Courbold, Joe Viskocil or Michael Lantieri).

Though the biggest key is that the BAFTA VFX nods are selected by the membership at large, as opposed to the Oscars which are selected by the experts at the VFX Branch. Hence the sometimes surprising selections.

01 January 2004, 03:38 AM
Hi Guys;

We're up for "Best Short Animation" for "Plumber" and I posted some pics from the film in the following thread (in case you're curious):

Best regards,

01 January 2004, 03:52 AM
so.....who said everything has to be groundbreaking stuff........I personally thought Gladiator was great for the eye...........but kinda found the australian hero to be quite queezy

CGTalk Moderation
01 January 2006, 05:00 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.