Slashdot Mirror
Visual Effects Oscar Shortlist
nurble writes "The short list of films being considered for a best visual effects Oscar was released today. The biggest news is that the final two installments of the Matrix trilogy were snubbed in favor of Universal Studios' "The Hulk," New Line Cinema's "The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King," 20th Century Fox's "Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World," Universal's "Peter Pan," Buena Vista Pictures' "Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl," Warner Bros. Pictures' "Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines" and Fox's "X2". Finalists will be announced following the effects "bake-off" on January 21st."
Return of the King, hands down. Best integration of effects with story I've seen, and come on, nothing was more impressive than Gollum. Most expressive CG character I've ever seen, take that Jar-Jar.
Make me a friend and I'll mod you up
As I recall, critics were saying the only redeeming quality of the last matrix was its visual effects... Nice mood swing.
The second and third Matrix releases weren't the best in the effects department. I am blown away that Hulk was even considered.
Anyhow, the Oscars are moot. The whole academy is nothing more than a mutual-admiration society that pats each other on the back all day. They're trying to sell you tickets and DVDs, remember?
Trolling is a art,
Not only was this one of the worst films I have seen in years, but the effects were brutally unfitting. It reminded me of the movies where they take the cartoon charecter and put him in the real world. I don't think that was the desired effect though...
Every time I watch a trailer for Peter Pan, I always say to myself "Wow, that looks REALLY fake!" I think even Hook (with Robin Williams) looked more realistic, and that was 10 years ago!
I wasn't even aware that T3 brought anything new to special effects stage. They basically used the normal mishmash of off-the-shelf gags. It's horrible that T3 was ever made, but I would have set that opinion aside to judge it on special effects alone... except none of them were in anyway special.
:)
The Matrix 2 invented some new bleeding edge technology, fo sure. The problem was they couldn't find a good plot device to justify using it. But certainly the special effects accomplishments are a milestone even if the movie wasn't. I think Matrix 3 had little new except that they spent a lot more time in the CG department. How many Linux boxes does it take to render a few million sentinals anyway? Not sure it matters, one EMP wipes both out.
LORs had some amazing effects. The ingtegration with the story, the cinematography and the directoral style is probably their crowning accomplishment. Not to mention sheer volume. Like Matrix 2, they had to invent some new technology to pull off a "whola lotta something" effect. In this case, not just a whole lot of Agent Smiths, more like a whole lot of orcs and what not. And the impact was considerably greater.
My only beef with LOR effects was the places where it was so plainly obvious you were looking a miniature set. Like Isengard being washed away. Some of the scenes completely failed, slow motion water or not, to look remotely anything other than little models. I'm surprised by this as in other places the miniature effects were outstanding.
But Golem stole the show. That was a masterpiece of special effects. I hope it gets the accolades it deserves. After all, imagine had it turned out like the yellow critter in Lost in Space.
David Whatley
Stunning. If The Matrix 2-3 aren't nominated for an Oscar then we'll know that Hollywood has finally lost its last shred of credibility.
1993: Tommy Lee Jones beats John Malkovich for best supporting actor.
1998: Edward Norton does not win an Oscar for American History X.
1998: Saving Private Ryan, Elizabeth, and Thin Red Line each lose to Shakespear in Love for best picture.
2003: The Matrix 2-3 may not even be nominated for technical awards.
That's it Oscar! Go to hell. You lost legitamacy in my eyes with those first three gafes but this is stupid. What a sick and disgusting cess-pool of immorality and bad taste they are.
Anyways, I think it's cool they nominated a movie whose visual effects were subtle but convincing.
I strongly agree. The effects in The Return of the King might very well be the most advanced ever shown in cinemas, and look damn good at that, but ultimately they're not 100% convincing. Visual effects are supposed to assist in creating an atmosphere and sense of scale, which ROTK's effects really do, but they're also supposed to suspend any sensation of disbelief, which ROTK's effects don't always.
I definitely think ROTK should get the visual effects Oscar this year, just wanted to state that I agree flashiness isn't everything.
I agree as well. The main reason for MC's nomination is that recreating water in the computer is probably the toughest challenge for any visual effects team because we all know how water looks like and how it behaves. Special effects that are fantastical like in LOTR or Matrix movies are harder to judge because we can't make accurate comparisons to anything in real life.
While I must say the parent poster uses a lot of useless CAPS (someone needs to teach him that they work best when used sparely), I strongly agree with the content.
I think the Matrix 2/3 story was barely average, the visual effects were very good, usually well integrated and created a very nice atmosphere. Not including them really is not fair to the movies, because this is an area where they still were extremely good (too bad they could not make a story line as good as Matrix 1!).
Huh, forget about Ludivine Sagnier. Monica Bellucci's as Persephone had some amazing visual effects going on in Matrix Revolutions, definitely worthy of Oscar recognition.
Heck, forget about the Oscars, those babies deserve a pair of Golden Globe awards.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
You do realize, that in the comic books, the Hulk can and does leap a couple of miles at a time fairly regularly, don't you?
Ladies and Gentlemen, let me remind you. Before the CGI, before Bill Bixby, there was a comic book. The Incredible Hulk ran for years before the TV series even came out. And, quite frankly, the TV series (and related made-for-TV movies) had their own faults. In the comics, the Hulk pretty much shrugs off bullets, tank rounds, etc. In the last movie, he dies after falling a hundred feet or so. A poor end to a comic book character who can leap two miles up in the air and land safely.
That being said, the movie sucked, and the screenwriters for it (John Turman, Michael France, and James Schamus) should be taken out back and beaten with a large stick.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
No, you're not. Was it William's best movie? Nah... was it even remotely Oscar-caliber in any way? No, but I think the /. opinion on the Oscar committee greatly resembles a bucket of feces.
Was it a fun movie? Yes. And Dustin Hoffman as Hook was an even more brilliant piece of casting then Robin Williams as a middle-aged Peter Pan.
Kierthos
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
The most likely possibility isn't that they deliberatley snubbed both Matrix films. Both were released in the same year, so some voted for one, some voted for the other, and neither got enough to get on the list. Probably a good reason not to release two films in the same year until the Academy changes their voting in some way that can more fairly acknowledge multi-part works.
"How perfectly Goddamn delightful it all is, to be sure" Charles Crumb
The battle scenes with all the pirates changing back and forth as they stepped in and out of the moonlight were excellently done. Doing that on a battle-sized scale is incredible.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
Piractes of the Carribean rocked above all other movies.
:)
Strange you went from funny to flamebait to troll though.
I haven't even seen all three movies, only the first, and I was extremely impressed. No, I take that back; I was astounded. It made me think, and reinforced that thinking, since the Matrix final films were released: if the type of level of effects were possible in TT & ROTK, why was Matrix so, and everything else, so bad? In my opinion, it makes the Matrix a pop music phenomenon, and ROTK a classical masterpiece. At any rate, we'll certainly see how much Hollywood politics weighs in once the Oscar decision is announced.
Spread the RC luvin'
I've read an interview with Wolfgang Becker - the German director of the "Good Bye, Lenin!" and there was a sentence I find +1 Insightful (with a slight tint of -1 Flamebait). Becker was asked about the CGI used in this film - whose large sequences take part in the pre-1989, communist East Berlin. Becker said that his film actually relies quite heavily on CGI just to remove all the contemporary signs of western capitalism in Berlin. When the journalist said that the CGI in this film is hard to notice, Becker said: "I am proud that the special effects in my film are hard to notice. Only in America the filmmakers are proud of special effects that are easy to notice".
I agree that ROTK has surpassed the Matrix movies, but Revolutions should have at least gotten a nod.
Gollum may be the most well-done CG-character, the most realistic CG human face goes to Matrix Revolutions. Why? Well, you remember when, in the crater, Neo punches Smith in the face in slow-motion, and you see the effects of the punch in Smith's face, his skin rippling, etc?
Nothing in that shot was real. It was all CG.
Also, you have to at least give a nod to the siege of Zion sequence. It was pretty intense in the moment. Over all, Revolutions should have been given a chance. There was a lot of great CG, from the Sentinel siege, to the shot I described, to the explosion of the street when Smith slams Neo into it, and so on.
Still, ROTK should and will win.
"Sufferin' succotash."
A lot of the work in the Matrix sequels was actually miniatures, particularly the Zion shots. Just check out the credits for all the modelmakers. And they did have quite a bit of innovation, check George Borushkov's website for his SIGGRAPH documentation:
http://www.virtualcinematography.org/
You would find that most of the VFX bake-off finalists used miniatures in some quantity:
X2: the dam exteriors for example.
Pirates of the Caribbean: ships were miniatures for the most part.
Master and Commander: also quite a bit of ship miniatures.
Hulk: miniature Redwood forest, building the explodes, parts of the desert vistas and canyons, etc.
T3: the particle accelerator,most of the future war sequences.
Peter Pan: at least some of the ships were miniatures, but the movie hasn't opened yet, next Cinefex will have more details.
Also you'll be surprised at other stuff in LOTR. Not all was forced perspective, there were instances where actors were filmed separately (blue screen mostly) and resized and recomposited back in.
You would find most decent VFX supervisors and directors (like those represented in these 7 finalists), know when to use the most appropiate techniques. Old fashioned stuff doesn't always look better, take the sometimes not well scaled miniature water during the flooding of Isengard. It's a matter of when to use and combine which techniques checked against time and money constraints. Many of the supervisors of these 7 films (Richrd Hollander, Mike Fink, Dennis Muren, Scott Farrar, Richard Taylor, Jim Rygiel) have over 15, 20 years of professional VFX experience.
As a professional 3d character animator, I cant beleive how many people here dislike The Hulk and disreguard its accomplishments. The Hulk is one of the most complex 3d characters to date. The simulation in skin/muscle behavior alone has broke new ground. (While skin and muscle systems have been put to use before, none have ever attempted the complexity that is the hulk) Gollum vs The Hulk. Its an unfair comparison. Both characters serve different on screen purposes. The Hulk is a big green, muscle flexing, shit smashing giant, while the other is tight shot, up close, facially expressive actor who needs to deliver lines with its face in full frame. Any 3D Character Animator will tell you that there's no single 3d character rig that will live up to all of the scenarios on screen. Factor in things like time, and priorities... such a system if possible, would still not be utilized due to the huge amount of work required to do it. The HULK is state of the art, as is gollum. Both in different ways. We've come so far from Jurassic Park 1, The Abyss, etc... But while 3D technology is complex and amazing, it still is just a fake. Its all Fake. Look at how complex the human body is, the way it behaves in light, the finest of details, the muscles, the internal structure, bones, organs, cells, etc. In 3D we're just working with polygons or bspline surfaces. The most complex of muscle systems/simulations are still just fake hacks. They're difficult, odd, they break, they break other things, they make things behave oddly, but if you get it just right... it works. We walk that fine line between solution and complete failure. The solutions in 3D character animation are not perfect, they are far from it. The Hulk represents the BEST of todays technology and artistry. And if you disagree, Maybe you should look at some old Ray Harrihuasen(sp?) films. I dont mean to take a thing away from Gollum. Weta Digital did a SHIT fucking hot job on him and I know the motion capture director of Gollum. And i am so proud of what he and that team have accomplished. It is by far the best on screen digital actor that we've seen yet. But it does not mean that the HULK is any less of an accomplishment.