By SaltyStix Staff 2/21/2008

Our fifth roundtable discussion will be about the best visual effects. Just as before, don't hesitate to jump into the fray with your own thoughts by commenting at the bottom.

Brett: And the nominees are: THE GOLDEN COMPASS, PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END, TRANSFORMERS

Bob: I remember like ten years ago, when this was my favorite category at the Oscars because I had not seen, or even heard of, most of the nominees in the major categories. Weird that now I could care less about this category, and hated the two films I actually saw in it. But that's neither here nor there.

Brett: It’s still a fanboys dream category.

AJ: I would probably say Transformers.

Brett: Transformers, because the Academy is still young at heart, and loves robots in disguise.

Bob: Pirates. Transformers should have won, but they totally screwed up the visual effects by using to tight of camera angles and too many edits. You could never really see the transformers from a wide angle, or what they were doing. Pirates still had Davy Jones, who was amazingly created (probably the only good thing about Pirates 2 and 3).

AJ: I would still say Transformers for this category. Bob, I think the reason they only showed you quick glimpses of the Transformers was both a pacing thing, and a way to make the CG more realistic. It's like the alien in signs, when you only see quick glimpses of him, he is much more believable and frightening. When you are given quick glimpses of the Transformers, their movements are somewhat less clunky because you don't settle on one image for more than a fraction of a second.

Bob: To expand on that, I think the main reason for the way the transformers were shown was Michael Bay's ADD style. I honestly thing the movie could have been great had, say, Spielberg directed it.

Brett: I think that the quick camera movements were part of Bay's intention to make the audience feel like they were there. Think about it. If you are in the middle of an alien robot fight, with lots of explosions, you will not stop and focus on one thing. You would be running for your life. This may seem far-fetched, but that seems to be what Bay was after. We should also think about the scenes where the transformers were standing still and not fighting, like when Shia was talking to them from his bedroom window. Those scenes are more "Spielberg" and show a little more discipline by Bay.

Aaron: Back to the possibility of victory and Academy politics – Pirates was nominated in 2004 and lost and nominated in 2006 and won...so I’m not sure how that effects it’s chances. I mean, the visual effects in the last one had a lot more than in Dead Man's Chest. So I think the movie could win again. Maybe Bay will have to wait for Transformers 2 for this category.

Bob: I really think the animation on Davy Jones in and of itself deserves two academy awards. I didn't like the film at all, but Davy Jones looked phenomenal.

Aaron: Yeah. I guess I should have just asked my question. Do you think they will give it to Pirates AGAIN?

Bob: It wouldn't be unprecedented. They did give this award to each of the LOTR films.

Brett: Should they really give it to Pirates? I think not. Nothing changed between the films, save Davey Jones. I did not think that the visuals in this film were any different than Dead Man's Chest. Transformers on the other hand not only depended on the visuals for plots sake, but also actually raised the bar in my mind. Pirates had scenes entirely CGI, whereas Transformers had most mixed with live action people and places. Even though I liked Pirates better as a movie, I have to give this one to Transformers

AJ: I agree with Brett. The difference between Pirates and LOTR is that the technology involved with LOTR evolved with each film. I remember watching a special feature on one of the DVD's, and they were talking about the use of a battle simulator that was used for the large CG battles. I think they developed the technology sometime between 1 and 2, and the began to use it more effectively as the films went on. They really upped the ante with each film, something I can't say about the time between Pirates 2 and 3. Davy Jones is sweet, but nothing new here.

Aaron: I'm not sure I would just "give" this one to transformers. Compass was visually beautiful. And it had so many animals that they had to animate as well as the compass which is a huge "tiebreaker" I think, against animated objects. Animated cars, also cool, but not "beautiful" for the much older Academy viewers.

AJ: Here's the issue, of the three, I've only seen Pirates, and to be frank, I wasn't overly impressed with the effects. Also, from what I heard, the talking Bear in Golden Compass was pretty cheesy.

Aaron: I agree. With some reservations of course. Pirates did not impress but I think that was because it was so dark and a lot of the stuff they did was just stupid (i wont go through all of those instances here). Compass' special effects were disappointing because yes, the bears/animals/etc didnt even rise to the level of CGI but seemed more animated. Transformers' special effects were "cooler." At the same time Compass was visually beautiful - which the category, "visual effects" would put it under...and Transformers not nearly as "wow" as some of the stuff in Compass.

Brett: I have neglected Compass up to this point, and I do agree with Aaron that is visually dazzling. I had a fairly high expectations for this film after watching the trailer. Most of those expectations were exceeded while watching the film, but it was mostly the setting that merits a visual award. The cities, buildings, cars, and planes were all incredibly impressive but the animals were for the most part average, especially for a film meant to be turned into a franchise. The bears were impressive in what they did on screen but I just didn't feel them as I did with the Autobots and Decepticons in Transformers. While both the bears and bots were important to the plot and continuity of the films, the Transformers left a more lasting impression on me.

Aaron: Yeah - I need to make this crystal clear. While I enjoyed Compass, the bears and the other animals (except the feret and Kidman's animal) looked REALLY corny. Like, not even rising to the level of Narnia and a FAR cry from LOTR.

Bob: Who’s everyone going to pick?

Aaron: I can’t decide. I’ll go with Pirates? Final answer.

Brett: Transformers

AJ: Transformers

Bob: Pirates, again.

SaltyStix Roundtable 1: The Academy's Mistakes

SaltyStix Roundtable 2: Best Animated Feature

SaltyStix Roundtable 3: Best Adapted Screenplay

SaltyStix Roundtable 4: Best Original Screenplay

SaltyStix Roundtable 5: Best Visual Effects

SaltyStix Roundtable 6: Best Art Direction

SaltyStix Roundtable 7: Best Editing

SaltyStix Roundtable 8: Best Costume Design

SaltyStix Roundtable 9: Best Cinematography

SaltyStix Roundtable 10: Best Actor

SaltyStix Roundtable 11: Best Actress

SaltyStix Roundtable 12: Best Supporting Actor

SaltyStix Roundtable 13: Best Supporting Actress

SaltyStix Roundtable 14: Best Director

SaltyStix Roundtable 15: Best Picture

Could “Avatar” Win Best Picture?

By Brett Hogan

 

Last week, the trailer for James Cameron’s sci-fi experiment “Avatar” debuted. While initially unimpressed with the teaser, I began to wonder: Could this film win best picture? 

 

Buzz has been generating for this movie for years. Years. The technology to make this movie didn’t exist when Cameron conceived it, so he invented it. When is the last time you heard of a director spearheading the invention of anything? The casting started in 2005. Most movies these days, even epics, are done in half that time. I could go on. 

 

The most important thing to take away from all of this is that people are saying this will be the future of movies. Now, I don’t agree with the idea that CGI will become more prevalent than it already is. But I do believe that this will set the bar miles higher for sci-fi. I mean, that is what Titanic did. And that won some awards if memory serves.

 

I’ll bet you’re asking yourself, how can you even suggest that a film like this will win Best Picture when the initial trailer was nothing better than visual stimulation? Well, there are a couple of reasons. First, the Academy has expanded Best Picture to ten films. This doesn’t guarantee anything other than improved chances for most films on the cusp.

 

Second, after last year’s Oscars debacle, which saw the best film of the year, “The Dark Knight,” not only get shafted in awards but nominations as well, the Academy is pulling out all the stops to appease those with the loudest voices in the film industry, the fanboys. Now, the Academy probably didn’t lose anything because of that other than some viewers of the award show. Perhaps if people are again outraged with the winners or nominees, the heads of the Academy would lose their jobs. So this is all about the Academy protecting itself, which is not so outrageous.  

 

 

Third, there is an economic motive here. I’ve heard this film will cost $190 million, not counting the R&D costs associated with Cameron’s inventions or the cost of getting 3-D cameras into every theater in the country. The Academy will do everything in its power to get people into the seats and make this the next “Titanic” or “The Dark Knight.” But the Academy doesn’t have much power, besides nominating and awarding, so they will slap the “Nominated for Best Picture” moniker onto every commercial and print ad to get the people who didn’t believe the critics to relent and see this movie.

 

Of course, all of this is pure conjecture, and no revolutionary film (Terminator 2, Jurassic Park, etc.) has ever won the Best Picture category because it changed the game. Except maybe Titanic. But still, could this movie actually win? My answer is no but a nomination is certain and who knows what could happen from there. We’ll know more come February 2010.