One Oscar Nomination: Make-Up

Revenge Of The Sith
May 19 2005
Runtime • 140 minutes • Rated PG-13

One Oscar Nomination: Make-Up

Postby FightingWithClay » January 31st 2006 9:27 am

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.
FightingWithClay
 
Posts: 34
Join: February 9th 2005 12:53 pm

Postby The Dark Shape » January 31st 2006 12:50 pm

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

Postby tlbauerle » January 31st 2006 4:46 pm

The Dark Shape wrote:Narnia received a Visual FX nomination over Revenge of the Sith? Bullshit.


Did you even see Narnia?
tlbauerle
 
Posts: 212
Join: July 27th 2004 5:49 pm

Postby JereWan » January 31st 2006 5:16 pm

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 :)
User avatar
JereWan
 
Posts: 86
Join: March 9th 2005 2:38 pm

Postby FightingWithClay » January 31st 2006 6:03 pm

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

Postby JereWan » January 31st 2006 6:07 pm

FightingWithClay wrote:Visual FX Nominations should have been Revenge of the Sith, Harry Potter and King Kong.

I thought : ROTS, WOTW and KK.
User avatar
JereWan
 
Posts: 86
Join: March 9th 2005 2:38 pm

Postby VizAg » January 31st 2006 6:55 pm

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.
User avatar
VizAg
 
Posts: 58
Join: May 9th 2005 2:48 pm

Postby CoGro » February 1st 2006 1:21 am

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.
User avatar
CoGro
 
Posts: 2577
Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Location: Toronto, Canada

Postby Ayatollah Krispies » February 1st 2006 1:54 am

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.
Ayatollah Krispies
 
Posts: 857
Join: August 6th 2004 6:29 am

Postby LP » February 1st 2006 4:55 am

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.
LP
 
Posts: 19
Join: November 4th 2004 1:27 am

Postby royalguard96 » February 1st 2006 10:34 am

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.
User avatar
royalguard96
 
Posts: 631
Join: October 31st 2003 7:00 am
Location: Michigan

Postby LP » February 1st 2006 12:25 pm

"flows" bitch! "flows"! i saw the unsatisfactory behind the scenes disk...

and is that icon your girlfriend? you lonely lonely boy.
LP
 
Posts: 19
Join: November 4th 2004 1:27 am

Postby The Dark Shape » February 1st 2006 12:45 pm

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.
The Dark Shape
 
Posts: 142
Join: May 11th 2004 2:11 pm

Postby tlbauerle » February 1st 2006 6:54 pm

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

Postby MannyOrtez » February 3rd 2006 10:29 pm

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.
User avatar
MannyOrtez
 
Posts: 433
Join: December 1st 2004 9:42 pm

Postby Raveers » February 3rd 2006 11:54 pm

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.
Raveers
Fat Bastard
 
Posts: 1550
Join: September 27th 2005 8:01 pm
Location: In hell

Postby MannyOrtez » February 4th 2006 11:55 am

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.
User avatar
MannyOrtez
 
Posts: 433
Join: December 1st 2004 9:42 pm

ROTS Oscar Nominations

Postby DanSh1138 » February 5th 2006 4:30 am

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.
DanSh1138
 
Posts: 56
Join: December 26th 2004 8:50 pm

Postby SI » February 5th 2006 6:45 am

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.
User avatar
SI
Site Admin
 
Posts: 1669
Join: May 25th 1977 7:00 am

Postby thecolorsblend » February 7th 2006 5:59 pm

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.
thecolorsblend
 
Posts: 395
Join: October 6th 2004 8:26 pm

Postby Topeka » February 9th 2006 12:49 pm

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.
User avatar
Topeka
Bush Pilot
 
Posts: 1483
Join: March 23rd 2005 3:46 pm


Return to Episode III

Statistics

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron