Academy Awards Nomination and Reaction

I love it when people open their mouths in protest without even being fully aware of the opposing party's arguments.

From my other post:

ESB was released in the same year as Superman II, which performed wonderfully and had an established brand-name. ESB still handily trounced it.

ANH was released in the same year as Close Encounters and Saturday Night Fever. Both performed wonderfully. ANH destroyed them both.

____________________________________________

Oh, and AOTC was the 4th highest grossing film of the year, not the second.

 

and even though the battle in AOTC was in broad daylight, people still complain that they dont know what the heck was going on.

Those people would be the idiots then as it is clearly obvious what is going on. Honestly, do people have such a short attention span that they can't comprehend a simple if visually complex battle sequence?

As for Helms Deep, it would have cool if you could actually see anything. It just looked like a big indistinct mass of movement. You had the big dark blob attacking the model castle. Yeah, and this wins effects of the year.

CLONES was robbed, plain and simple.

 

Why, because you say so?

No, because as I said in my next sentence of that post, IMAX choices are severely limited.

 

Unbelievable. The effects wizards themselves, the ones who did the effects for AOTC, TTT, etc., voted that TTT had the best of the year. What is wrong with you?

 

It's not like people are forced to see Imax films they don't actually want to see. CLONES is still doing business because people still want to see the film. It's really not that hard to figure out.

 

Unbelievable. The effects wizards themselves, the ones who did the effects for AOTC, TTT, etc., voted that TTT had the best of the year. What is wrong with you?

How's that again? The people who actually worked on the movies are allowed to vote for their own movies? Doesn't that create a, you know, conflict of interest or something like that?

I'm not exactly sure how the voting process works, but as far as I know, industry professionals only choose which films are nominated. The actual voting is done by "The Committee", not by the same group who nominates the films.

 

The members of the Visual Effects Society are responsible for picking the nominees and winners. There's no elite group of judges.

It isn't just the people who've done the effects on the movies nominated. It's made up of people who have done one or more of the following:

- Worked for at least 5 years as a visual effects professional and have the endorsement of 2 VES members.

- Be a member of the Visual Effects branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences or the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.

- Won an Academy Award or Emmy for Best Visual Effects.

So as you can see, these people are fully qualified to give their opinions. 430 experts voted, and TTT swept, winning 8 of the 9 categories it was nominated in.

Now are you going to tell me that all these people, these experts in their field are wrong?

 

Now are you going to tell me that all these people, these experts in their field are wrong?

Yes.

 

I don't think we can say experts in any field are wrong, but we are free to disagree with them, which myself, Durwood and many others do.

And this IS the Academy Award thread and not the box office thread, right? I just don't wanna get lost...

 

Hey, I got back on topic. We're talking the FX now.

 

There were many effects in AOTC that had never been done before...

There was nothing in TTT that had never been done before...

That's why I think AOTC should have won the Oscar for VFX.

 

Really? What in AOTC hadn't been done before?

If AOTC was so incredibly ground-breaking, then it would have beaten out TTT at the VES awards. Regardless of how much you value your own opinion, regardless of how much you think you know, these guys know more than you do, and are infinitely more qualified to judge the effects-work than you are.

I'll tell you what TTT did that hadn't been done before: had an emotionally moving, convincing performance from a CG character that didn't call attention to the fact that he was CG.

 

Really? What in AOTC hadn't been done before?

1. AOTC was the first major motion picture to be filmed with an HD digital camera. In fact, the camera was specifically designed for the film.

2. The digital army of clone troopers, which were seen in daylight and close-up .

There are more but that's a good start.

I'll tell you what TTT did that hadn't been done before: had an emotionally moving, convincing performance from a CG character that didn't call attention to the fact that he was CG.

I'm afraid not my Jedi Council collegue. The award was for best visual effects, and effects-wise a totally cg character had already been done in 1999's Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. In fact, that movie featured more than one digital characters.

 

1. AOTC was the first major motion picture to be filmed with an HD digital camera. In fact, the camera was specifically designed for the film.

Fanboy Fallacy #2. "Vidocq" was shot with the same digital camera that AOTC was before the latter's release. It was an independent film, but technically, so is AOTC. Not that it makes a difference anyway.

2. The digital army of clone troopers, which were seen in daylight and close-up .

And TPM had the digital army of battle droids. What is the difference between whatyou see with the clonetroopers and the battle droids, other than that you know the troopers are humans and move differently? They were incredibly well-done, but certainly not revolutionary.

The award was for best visual effects, and effects-wise a totally cg character had already been done in 1999's Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. In fact, that movie featured more than one digital characters.

"Young Sherlock Holmes" had the first fully CG character. "Terminator 2" had the first CG biped. "Dragonheart" had the first CG character to have a starring role in a movie. Jar Jar was nothing new.

Gollum is. Compare his emotional performance to any other CG character and it's absolutely no contest; he blows them all away.

 

Gollum is. Compare his emotional performance to any other CG character and it's absolutely no contest; he blows them all away.

"Emotion" has nothing to do with special fx. Special fx is a technical field, and so the "emotional performance" of a cg character should not be taken into account, imho, when deciding which film had the superior fx. The award should be based upon the purely technical aspects of the film's fx.

 

There were many effects in AOTC that had never been done before...

There was nothing in TTT that had never been done before...

That's why I think AOTC should have won the Oscar for VFX.

The award is Best Visual Effects, not Best Effect Audiences Hadn't Seen Before. Originality has nothing to do with it. It's quality, not originality or quantity.

 

Those of you that claim to be discerning FX critics praising Spider-man are hypocrites. If not for nearly every fx shot being in the dark spider-man would've been unwatchable.

 

The award is Best Visual Effects, not Best Effect Audiences Hadn't Seen Before. Originality has nothing to do with it. It's quality, not originality or quantity.

Then there's no way that "The Matrix" should have beaten TPM back when it was up for an award.

 

Wrong! Visual effects are not a purely technical category, they are the use of technology to visually express something. They are a work of art much more than technolgy. The technology serves the art, not the other way around.

That is why The Matrix beat out TPM for the Oscar. Because the effects work in The Matrix moved more voters. I don't agree with that, but that is the reason it won. It's also one of the reasons TTT beat out AOTC.

 

Then there's no way that "The Matrix" should have beaten TPM back when it was up for an award.

I agree. But two wrongs do not make a right.

 

Forget it. I had a long reply typed out but YodaJeff once again reminded us that this is not a SW vs. LOTR thread.

I am sick of this SW vs. LOTR crap.

 

I don't understand this discussion. Every last one of you surely must agree that there wasn't much between TTT and AOTC as far as effects were concerned. One of the films has to win and in this case it was TTT, probably because more Academy voters saw that film than AOTC. But this isn't (no matter what your opinion) a scandalous decision. There are other categories at the Oscars that have far more outrageous results. Frida and Time Machine up for the Meke-Up Oscar? Avica Goldsman winning an Oscar? Julia Roberts winning an Oscar? Catherine Zeta-Jones winning an Oscar (somebody needs to remind the Academy that that Oscar is for "acting" and not for singing and dancing)? Oliver! beating 2001. Best Picture award for Driving Miss Daisy.
And you whole concern is which one of those two monumental effect showcases should win an Oscar?

 

"Forget it. I had a long reply typed out but YodaJeff once again reminded us that this is not a SW vs. LOTR thread.

I am sick of this SW vs. LOTR crap."

hOo hoo! May you be forgiven!

 

If not for nearly every fx shot being in the dark spider-man would've been unwatchable.

It was unwatchable, effects in the dark or not!

 

Every last one of you surely must agree that there wasn't much between TTT and AOTC as far as effects were concerned.

Shot for shot, CLONES was clearly superior to THE TWO TOWERS, unless you think the aweful looking wargs, obvious models (in some cases, very obvious!), the fake looking walking trees (and it wasn't the simple fact that trees were walking that made them fake looking), Merry and Pippen floating in front of a plainly obivious bluescreen for most of the movie, and the nearly indiscernable battle at Helms Deep were better than the hundreds of flawless effects in ATTACK OF THE CLONES.

I say again, Gollum in and of himself is certainly not enough reason to award the entire movie for visual effects. Gollum was good, yes, but what about the several dozen cringe worthy effects shots littered throughout the film?