It is currently August 15th 2018 9:48 pm




 
Post Posted: January 31st 2006 9:27 am
 

Join: February 9th 2005 12:53 pm
Posts: 34
http://imdb.com/features/rto/2006/oscars

Best Achievement in Makeup

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe (2005) - Howard Berger, Tami Lane
Cinderella Man (2005) - David LeRoy Anderson, Lance Anderson
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005) - Dave Elsey, Annette Miles




EIII got a Makeup nomination, the one I thought it was least likely to get.


Post Posted: January 31st 2006 12:50 pm
 

Join: May 11th 2004 2:11 pm
Posts: 142
Narnia received a Visual FX nomination over Revenge of the Sith? Bullshit.


Post Posted: January 31st 2006 4:46 pm
 

Join: July 27th 2004 5:49 pm
Posts: 212
The Dark Shape wrote:
Narnia received a Visual FX nomination over Revenge of the Sith? Bullshit.


Did you even see Narnia?


Post Posted: January 31st 2006 5:16 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 9th 2005 2:38 pm
Posts: 86
I saw King Kong, WOTW, ROTS and Narnia.

I really think ROTS deserves the FX oscar, so more than Narnia.

At last, I hope WOTW will get the academy award :)


Post Posted: January 31st 2006 6:03 pm
 

Join: February 9th 2005 12:53 pm
Posts: 34
Visual FX Nominations should have been Revenge of the Sith, Harry Potter and King Kong.


Post Posted: January 31st 2006 6:07 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 9th 2005 2:38 pm
Posts: 86
FightingWithClay wrote:
Visual FX Nominations should have been Revenge of the Sith, Harry Potter and King Kong.

I thought : ROTS, WOTW and KK.


Post Posted: January 31st 2006 6:55 pm
 
User avatar

Join: May 9th 2005 2:48 pm
Posts: 58
Kong will win I think. The Academy seems to have a boner for anything Peter Jackson touches.

It's just sad though that ROTS was overlooked. While there wasn't anything terribly "new" and "special" technically, everything was done with such a high degree of perfection. There are no shots in ROTS that stand out to me as having bad FX, whereas in King Kong there are plenty!
-Every time Kong picks up Anne, she looks like a barbie doll
-Compositing of the people running underneath the Dinosaurs looks like ass

Anywho, it's gotten to a point in films that almost every movie has effects and they are all done reasonably well...i.e. the effects aren't special anymore; they are just commonplace.


Post Posted: February 1st 2006 1:21 am
 
User avatar

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2539
Location: Toronto, Canada
That's a pretty big joke...and even more of a joke because it was expected.

What ILM has done with the prequels is nothing short of remarkable. No other house on the planet for the next 15 years could do what they have done based not only on quality but sheer scale. There's 2000 effects shots in Star Wars, and damn near all of them are the best you'll ever see.

A shame Knoll and Coleman were never given the respect they deserve on this project.


Post Posted: February 1st 2006 1:54 am
 

Join: August 6th 2004 6:29 am
Posts: 857
VizAg wrote:
Kong will win I think. The Academy seems to have a boner for anything Peter Jackson touches.


If that were anything close to the truth, Kong would have been nominated for a hell of a lot more than sound and visual categories.

The VFX winner will probably be Narnia. That will be an ironic loss for Jackson, given that the Narnia film franchise owes its existence to the success of LOTR.

CoGro wrote:
What ILM has done with the prequels is nothing short of remarkable. No other house on the planet for the next 15 years could do what they have done based not only on quality but sheer scale. There's 2000 effects shots in Star Wars, and damn near all of them are the best you'll ever see.

A shame Knoll and Coleman were never given the respect they deserve on this project.


Rightly or wrongly, the FX on the PT are going to be viewed as the results of a billionaire spending whatever money he felt like spending and giving his team 3 years to do their work. ILM is hardly the Cinderella story that Dykstra's team was on the original.


Post Posted: February 1st 2006 4:55 am
 

Join: November 4th 2004 1:27 am
Posts: 20
but what did ROTS do that was so noteworthy? paste on crappy digital heads? invent or reinvent phony lava flows...

which film was the most revolutionary if any? or who did the same things the best...this year feels like judging gymnastics or iceskating...who cares.


Post Posted: February 1st 2006 10:34 am
 
User avatar

Join: October 31st 2003 7:00 am
Posts: 573
Location: Michigan
LP wrote:
but what did ROTS do that was so noteworthy? paste on crappy digital heads? invent or reinvent phony lava flows...

which film was the most revolutionary if any? or who did the same things the best...this year feels like judging gymnastics or iceskating...who cares.


Apparently you missed the actual lava eruptions filmed in Italy that were incorporated into the Mustafar scenes.

Oh wait, you couldn't tell the difference between what was "real" lava and what was CGI? How curious...

Oh, and the Oscars have been irrelevant for years. Nothing has changed there.


Post Posted: February 1st 2006 12:25 pm
 

Join: November 4th 2004 1:27 am
Posts: 20
"flows" bitch! "flows"! i saw the unsatisfactory behind the scenes disk...

and is that icon your girlfriend? you lonely lonely boy.


Post Posted: February 1st 2006 12:45 pm
 

Join: May 11th 2004 2:11 pm
Posts: 142
tlbauerle wrote:
The Dark Shape wrote:
Narnia received a Visual FX nomination over Revenge of the Sith? Bullshit.


Did you even see Narnia?


Yes. The FX were mediocre at their best, terrible at their worst.

LP wrote:
but what did ROTS do that was so noteworthy? paste on crappy digital heads? invent or reinvent phony lava flows...


What did Narnia do?

If Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire had gotten the final nomination, I'd be fine with it. I still think Sith's FX are superior, but Goblet was at least in the same league. Narnia's visuals are incredibly bad at times. It has the worst blue-screen compositing since Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone, CGI wolves that are worse than those in The Day After Tomorrow, etc. Aslan looks so incredibly soft it's obvious he's not in the same frame as the children.


Post Posted: February 1st 2006 6:54 pm
 

Join: July 27th 2004 5:49 pm
Posts: 212
I thought the work they did on Tomlis was great...replacing his lower body competely like that was pretty dang cool.


Post Posted: February 3rd 2006 10:29 pm
 
User avatar

Join: December 1st 2004 9:42 pm
Posts: 428
What an absolute freakin joke it is that ROTS didn't get an effects nod. I will say no more. The Oscars have no credibility with me now anyway.


Post Posted: February 3rd 2006 11:54 pm
 
Fat Bastard

Join: September 27th 2005 8:01 pm
Posts: 1548
Location: In hell
Well this definitely proves that the Oscars and the Academy Awards are anti-Lucas when it comes to Star Wars.

Hell the score for Ep III should have been nominated for an Oscar. Please don't give me "Well because of the rules" crap. Look at LOTR: Return Of The King's score. That had themes from the previous two movies all through out that entire score yet it took everything at both the Oscars and the Academy Awards. It's just pure horse shit if you ask me.

Oh well such is life.


Post Posted: February 4th 2006 11:55 am
 
User avatar

Join: December 1st 2004 9:42 pm
Posts: 428
Good point, Raveers, ROTK really only had a couple new themes in it. ROTS had much much less reused themes, and it certainly deserved to win, Anakin's Betrayal, The Immolation Scene, Battle of the Heroes....argh.


Post Posted: February 5th 2006 4:30 am
 

Join: December 26th 2004 8:50 pm
Posts: 56
Hey Revenge of the Sith DID have some good makeup effects.


Honestly though, Lucas has placed himself pretty far outside of the Hollywood establishment and the Oscars are basically just industry awards.

Not that I'm agreeing with ROTS's snub at the nominations but the facts are that Lucas has made it clear in the past that he doesn't want to be a part of the Hollywood system and he resigned his membership in the Director's Guild of America a long time ago... add to that the fact that he financed the movie with his own money and as a result the Hollywood studio system saw very little back...

The sad part is that the overall feeling about ROTS in theaters were that people really enjoyed going to the movies, and especially when Hollywood and the theater chains doing such bad business these days it would have been nice for ROTS to get some acknowledgement.

But.. the numbers don't lie $380 million on a budget of $115 is the highest movie of 2005 second only to the last Harry Potter movie.

In any event, I would not be surprised if whoever wins the FX Oscar mentions the snub to ROTS in their acceptance speech.


Post Posted: February 5th 2006 6:45 am
 
Site Admin
User avatar

Join: May 25th 1977 7:00 am
Posts: 1594
this reaffirms my belief in those cocksucking assclowns in the academy. It's a fucking sham that this prehistoric awards suck-off even relevant any more.


Post Posted: February 7th 2006 5:59 pm
 

Join: October 6th 2004 8:26 pm
Posts: 395
CoGro wrote:
That's a pretty big joke...and even more of a joke because it was expected.

What ILM has done with the prequels is nothing short of remarkable. No other house on the planet for the next 15 years could do what they have done based not only on quality but sheer scale. There's 2000 effects shots in Star Wars, and damn near all of them are the best you'll ever see.

A shame Knoll and Coleman were never given the respect they deserve on this project.


Every shot in the prequels (except the gas pouring from the vents in TPM) had some sort of digital enhancement, right? I bet 90% of people can't identify the CG/digital stuff in the majority of the "normal" shots. I sure can't on many occasions. People think CG sucks because they focus on the things that stand out the most... forgetting that EVERY SINGLE SHOT has some kind of effect in it. It's ridiculous.

The Academy people have no idea what they're talking about.


Post Posted: February 9th 2006 12:49 pm
 
Bush Pilot
User avatar

Join: March 23rd 2005 3:46 pm
Posts: 1453
Good point thecolorsblend.

I truly believe the reason why people see Narnia, King Kong, and the like as having superior effects is because they're purposely creating something "realistic." King Kong is very realistic, but he's simply a big gorilla, so you think "oh, he's looks just like a gorilla." An alien in Star Wars or a flying horse in Harry Potter automatically triggers the brain into thinking "that's fake", when in fact it can still be quite photorealistic.

I speak as a freelance CGI artist. The effects in films today are nothing short of remarkable. But in films like Star Wars, it's easy to separate the fantastical effects and the effects you don't even notice.


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 



Jump to:  
cron




millenniumfalcon.com©
phpBB©