Matrix Movies Snubbed For Best FX Oscar

[NCMojo]

From IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/StudioBrief/#2):
'Matrix' Sequels Ignored For Special FX Oscars

Already buffeted by poor critical reviews and a nosedive at the box office, Matrix directors Larry Wachowski and Andy Wachowski were slighted again on Monday when the seven contenders for Best Visual Effects Oscar were announced. Both The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions were conspicuously absent, shunted aside by the likes of the poorly reviewed Hulk as well as The Return of the King, X-Men 2, Master and Commander, Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Peter Pan and Terminator 3. Now, I was not a fan of Revolutions, but the special effects in Reloaded were extraordinarily impressive. The freeway scene alone should have garnered an Oscar nod. I obviously think that Master and Commander is out of place here, and frankly I found the special effects in T3 to be cheesy and unimpressive, especially compared with the groundbreaking work done by its predecessor 12 years before.

I know it's all a moot point, as Return of the King will obviously win this award and many others... I just think that the Matrix films got the short end of the stick. Thoughts?

[devilshalo]

Master and Commander belongs there just as Gladiator did a few years ago. People forget that invisible effects are just as impressive as a burly brawl to the VFX community.

I think that the Matrix sequels may have suffered from a couple of things. Gaeta being an asshat. And (at least for Reloaded) a lot of work seemed more like temp shots. The amount of detail that the burly brawl lacked (compared to the amount of detail in the battle of Minas Tirith).

Maybe Warner can push the Matrix sequels into the feature animation catagory :p

[PixyJunket]

I know they should be credited for the effects alone.. but I know personally I found it hard to pay attention to them while trying not to throw up from the dialouge and "plot" I was being shovled.

Now on the other hand one may think the award should go to best effects that compliment a good (or at least decent) movie. What's the point of watching the effects if they aren't backing anything up? Might as well let FX comapnies just submit demo reels at that point.

[PixyJunket]

Originally posted by devilshalo
Maybe Warner can push the Matrix sequels into the feature animation catagory :p :lol: Finding Nemo would still crush it.

[Groucho]

I don't understand. Doesn't the academy understand that the effects in these movies can't be replicated? Ever? Didn't they read the hype?

[huh?]

Originally posted by Groucho
I don't understand. Doesn't the academy understand that the effects in these movies can't be replicated? Ever? Didn't they read the hype?


rotfl

[PalmerJoss]

I thought Revolutions had some truly amazing effects work done on it. Reloaded had some decent effects, but IMO Revolutions just integrated them a lot better. I say it should have been nominated.

[fumanstan]

Both should have been up there. No doubt about it.

[Kal-El]

I think this has more to do with "been there, done that" and a little of Gaeta claiming his Virtual Cinematography was gonna be The Next Best Thing. Could also be cuz Matrix already won in 99.

[Sierra Disc]

The snub for Kangaroo Jack is what really rankles me here. Are you telling me that a better computer-generated rapping marsupial will ever be created?

[Jepthah]

I understand that many people really disliked the movies, and I had problems with them myself, but to not recognize the quality of the effects in them I think is just unfair.

I saw both Reloaded and Revolutions in IMAX and I can suspend my judgment about the films as films and admit that the visual effects were overall quite excellent and a lot of hard work went into them. To not even nominate them I have to conclude that something purely political is at work here.

[PixyJunket]

Jeptah.. to think that the Oscars are anything BUT political is plain tomfoolery!!

[das Monkey]

Their effects were great, no doubt, but I don't see anything wrong with their 6 selections (I haven't seen <b>Peter Pan</b>). I guess it depends on <i>which</i> FX awards these films were nominated for, but neither of <b>The Matrix</b> films was the best in any of the major visual or sound categories IMO. They were great, but so were some other great (and better) effects. Bump one of them, and then we should complain they got snubbed. I suspect there will be some incredible acting performances that don't get nominated either. You can't nominate everything.

das

[devilshalo]

Just wait until the bake off.. when the list of 7 contenders gets cut down to 3 nominees.

[Jepthah]

Originally posted by PixyJunket
Jeptah.. to think that the Oscars are anything BUT political is plain tomfoolery!!

Of course I know that, PJ, but since this is a technical category you would think the voting body would be able to be a little more impartial and recognize the quality of the work, no matter how much they dislike the actual content of the films or the people who did them.

I mean really, for instance I think Star Wars Eps. I & II were pretty underwhelming as movies but I would never deny them VFX Oscar nominations because I can recognize they are well done in that department!

[lesterlong]

I think the poll results speak for themselves.

[fumanstan]

I think the poll results are heavily influenced by those who dislike the movie. If ROTK wasn't nominated and a similar poll was made, people would be all over it.

Regardless, i think the Matrix movies should be on there, at least over something like Master and Commander, with which i don't think anyone would cry about it being "snubbed"

[Flay]

Originally posted by fumanstan
I think the poll results are heavily influenced by those who dislike the movie. If ROTK wasn't nominated and a similar poll was made, people would be all over it.

That's not a good comparison. The piss-poor quality of many of the Matrix scenes, Burly Brawl for example, is far below any CGI in ROTK, which is some of the best I've seen in a movie.

[chucks888]

I disagree with you all who favor Master and Commander off the list. It has some of the most seamless work I've seen in a film in ages. No real shots that call out "Look at me! I'm a big fancy expensive CGI shot!" Just real solid work that serves the story.

T3 is the most questionable for me. Just very standard(but well-done) stuff. Peter Pan- well from the trailers there are some good good looking effects in it, but since I haven't seen it I can't really comment on whether it should or shouldn't be on there.

All said and done though, none of this really matters as ROTK will and should win.

[chess]

travesty. period.

[onebyone]

I don't think it should have been nominated because 1. I really disliked these 2 movies and am heavily biased against anything and everything having to do with them (at least I am up front) and 2. the special effects were just TOO much. It didn't blend into the movie, it was like, "stop everything, FX coming up." It seemed almost unresponsible in its use of FX. I was drowning in it. Ugh.

[Suprmallet]

For all those saying Master and Commander should be taken off, I say, fie! Master and Commander should win because I don't remember any point in that movie where an effects shot stood out. Yet, looking back on the thing, it must have had tons. THAT is effect work done right. In fact, if Return of the King weren't a contender, I would say Master and Commander would be the one to win.

The Matrix stuff wasn't nominated because The Matrix already won. Plus, some of the effects work was TERRIBLE. Anytime they did a slow motion shot of Neo and Smith beating up on each other, it didn't look like humans. The Smith/Neo fights in both movies were subpar, effects-wise. The only thing I would take off that list is The Hulk, where The Hulk looked no different from an Xbox video game character.

T3 should be in there for the car chase sequence.

[jaeufraser]

Well, I for one think the movie (Revolutions) should have been up for the VFX award. I mean...there was some impressive stuff. Sure there were many VFX flaws, but they really did do some amazing vfx and quite frankly, their goals were very ambitious.

SOmething to note: Reloaded was not submitted to the Academy for consideration. I recall reading an interview where they would submit Revolutions but not Reloaded for consideration. I'm not sure if they followed thorugh with that, but more than likely.

[wm lopez]

What does Twikoff stand for?
I see this all the time.

[El-Kabong]

Originally posted by Jepthah
I understand that many people really disliked the movies, and I had problems with them myself, but to not recognize the quality of the effects in them I think is just unfair.

Oh yeah, Rubber Ball Neo and the 10 thousand Smiths was the pinnical of digital technology. That looked completly and totaly realistic and not like some half assed, half rendered cartoon.

Yup. That's oscar winning material right there. Uh-huh.

The words Oscar and Matrix should never be uttered in the same breath, unless the words "should not get a" are included too. The effects in 2 and 3 were dreadful. They looked completly fake, like a giant video game. I've seen better rendered stuff from my X-Box.

I saw Kill Bill right after I saw Matrix 2. It was so refreshing to see REAL people doing REAL kung-fu, I cant even begin to express my joy for the movie. Maybe Hollywood will learn their lesson from Matrix 3 crashing and burning, but somehow I doubt it.

[Jay G.]

Originally posted by El-Kabong
The words Oscar and Matrix should never be uttered in the same breath, unless the words "should not get a" are included too.
"Oscar should not get a Matrix"?

[Drexl]

Originally posted by jaeufraser
SOmething to note: Reloaded was not submitted to the Academy for consideration. I recall reading an interview where they would submit Revolutions but not Reloaded for consideration. I'm not sure if they followed thorugh with that, but more than likely.

Well, Warner wanted both of the sequels to be considered as a single film (since they were made together) to prevent the vote from being split, but the academy wouldn't do it.

[Jepthah]

Originally posted by El-Kabong
Oh yeah, Rubber Ball Neo and the 10 thousand Smiths was the pinnical of digital technology. That looked completly and totaly realistic and not like some half assed, half rendered cartoon.

Yup. That's oscar winning material right there. Uh-huh.

Yeah, and a little green midget samurai spinning through the air like a freaking amphetamine-addicted hedgehog is much better because it's from the wizards at ILM. Not to mention thousands of aliens that all move in the exact same way in a 'highly realistic' stadium. Pot, meet kettle. There's this little thing called 'suspension of disbelief' and you chose not to have it for the Matrix films. Simple as that.

The words Oscar and Matrix should never be uttered in the same breath, unless the words "should not get a" are included too. The effects in 2 and 3 were dreadful. They looked completly fake, like a giant video game. I've seen better rendered stuff from my X-Box.

That's funny, I seem to have heard the exact same thing about two other fantasy film franchises. I wonder where I heard things like that...somewhere around here. :lol:

[gcribbs]

I would pull The Hulk out of the group and replace it with Reloaded.

It was a very good movie IMO.

Of course I liked Revolutions which puts me in a minority.

[Jay G.]

Originally posted by Jepthah
Yeah, and a little green midget samurai spinning through the air like a freaking amphetamine-addicted hedgehog is much better because it's from the wizards at ILM. Not to mention thousands of aliens that all move in the exact same way in a 'highly realistic' stadium. Pot, meet kettle.

Star Wars Ep2 was released last year. The question isn't whether the Matrix sequels had better FX than SW. The question is whether either of the two Matrix sequels are more deserving than the 7 listed contenders. In my opinion, based on the contenders that I've seen, they're not.

[Kal-El]

Originally posted by Jay G.
Star Wars Ep2 was released last year. The question isn't whether the Matrix sequels had better FX than SW.

Well you just can't have any SFX discussion without bringing up Star Wars. You just can't. It's like, a rule or something around here. Sooner or later any discussion is bound to go there.

:D

[MrN]

Originally posted by wm lopez
What does Twikoff stand for?
I see this all the time.


The option for people with not enough options.

[mikehunt]

actually, to me at least, the invisible effects are more impressive.
and while the big brawl in Reloaded was good from a technical standpoint, towards the end it was laughable due to so many Smiths which for me causes it to lose impressiveness

Originally posted by devilshalo
Master and Commander belongs there just as Gladiator did a few years ago. People forget that invisible effects are just as impressive as a burly brawl to the VFX community.

I think that the Matrix sequels may have suffered from a couple of things. Gaeta being an asshat. And (at least for Reloaded) a lot of work seemed more like temp shots. The amount of detail that the burly brawl lacked (compared to the amount of detail in the battle of Minas Tirith).

Maybe Warner can push the Matrix sequels into the feature animation catagory :p

[jaeufraser]

A lot of people are lauding the movies with so-called invisible effects work. I'm sorry but that doesn't mean you should win an award. Graneted I'm not going to say M&C doesn't deserve it, but I really thought this was a technical award. Gladiator should have never won its award. Invisible effects? The effects were invisible because there weren't a whole lot of them. And the ones they did have were mostly scene extensions adding buildings and such, which were actually quite obvious, not invisible.

I think unfortunately you have a situation where technical merits are shadowed by the quality of the film. And as far as I see it this should be an award not for best USE of special effects but best special effects. Much like how Matrix beat Phantom Menace, now the Matrix is being snubbed due to its critical reception.

[Suprmallet]

Originally posted by jaeufraser
A lot of people are lauding the movies with so-called invisible effects work. I'm sorry but that doesn't mean you should win an award. Graneted I'm not going to say M&C doesn't deserve it, but I really thought this was a technical award. Gladiator should have never won its award. Invisible effects? The effects were invisible because there weren't a whole lot of them. And the ones they did have were mostly scene extensions adding buildings and such, which were actually quite obvious, not invisible.

I think unfortunately you have a situation where technical merits are shadowed by the quality of the film. And as far as I see it this should be an award not for best USE of special effects but best special effects. Much like how Matrix beat Phantom Menace, now the Matrix is being snubbed due to its critical reception.

Well, I don't know about Gladiator, but Master and Commander must have had tons of effects work, all of which looks natural. And why are those effects less impressive than a million Smiths and a Neo? I think if you can't tell what is an effect and what isn't, it is the best special effects. I still think the effects in the Matrix sequels look like computer effects, as opposed to, say, A.I., which also had computer effects that were seamlessly integrated into the live action.

The best effects aren't the ones that make you say "What a great effect!" They're the ones that make you say "That's an effect?"

[Groucho]

Originally posted by Suprmallet
I think if you can't tell what is an effect and what isn't, it is the best special effects.Well said. This is why The Matrix won over TPM back in 2000. It had the flashier special effects, whereas the latter movie seamlessly integrated its effects into the story.

[devilshalo]

Master and Commander is on par with A Perfect Storm. Comparing it to Gladiator was a bad example on my part. Water is still one of the trickier effects to get right. Probably why Stefen Fangmeier (ILM's resident weather effects supervisor ie. Twister, A Perfect Storm) was brought on.

I thought either Hollow Man or A Perfect Storm should have won in 2000.

Anyways, here's the way to vote from the Academy:

RULE TWENTY-TWO

SPECIAL RULES FOR THE VISUAL EFFECTS AWARD

1. The Academy President shall appoint a chairman who will form a committee from active and life members from the Visual Effects Branch. An executive committee on rules, a steering committee and a nominating committee shall constitute the Visual Effects Award Committee.

2. The Visual Effects Branch Executive Committee shall select members of a Steering Committee from members of the Visual Effects Branch to review a reminder list of all eligible motion pictures and shall cast secret ballots to select a maximum of seven productions for further consideration. Achievements shall be judged within the parameters defined by the Visual Effects Branch Executive Committee and on the basis of:

(a) consideration of the contribution the visual effects make to the overall production and

(b) the artistry, skill and fidelity with which the visual illusions are achieved.

3. The producers of the films selected for award consideration (or their designees) shall be requested to provide the committee with:

(a) written descriptions explaining the procedures used to create the effects,

(b) film excerpts from composite release prints -- not to exceed fifteen minutes (1,350 feet) in total running time -- showing the effects described and

(c) the names and titles of the primary individuals -- not to exceed four in number -- directly involved with, and principally responsible for, the visual effects achieved and a description of their contributions. Additional names will not be considered. The Visual Effects Award is a craft award. Producers, coordinators and other executives are not eligible for this award unless they are also craftpeople with primary creative responsibility for the achievement.

4. Visual Effects, as an achievement or a craft, shall be determined by the Visual Effects Branch Executive Committee. Eligibility of the contributor(s) to the achievement, for nomination purposes, shall be determined by the Visual Effects Branch Executive Committee.

5. Qualified active members of the Visual Effects Branch will be eligible to serve on the Visual Effects Award Nominating Committee and shall attend a meeting to view the film excerpts and vote upon the achievements. Written descriptions of the effects shall be sent to the committee prior to the meeting.

6. The producers (or their designees) may attend the meeting of the nominating committee, however, only the potential nominees will be allowed to address the nominating committee.

7. Following the running of film excerpts and discussion relative to the achievements, voting shall be conducted as follows:

(a) a ballot shall be cast by all members of the Visual Effects Nominating Committee present, who shall vote in the order of their preference for not more than three of the seven productions.

(b) The three productions receiving the highest number of votes shall become the nominations for final voting for the Visual Effects Award.

(c) Final voting for the Visual Effects Award shall be restricted to active and life Academy members.

8. Such other rules or procedures necessary for the proper conduct of this award shall be adopted by the Visual Effects Branch Executive Committee, subject to the approval of the Academy Board of Governors.

[jaeufraser]

Originally posted by Suprmallet
Well, I don't know about Gladiator, but Master and Commander must have had tons of effects work, all of which looks natural. And why are those effects less impressive than a million Smiths and a Neo? I think if you can't tell what is an effect and what isn't, it is the best special effects. I still think the effects in the Matrix sequels look like computer effects, as opposed to, say, A.I., which also had computer effects that were seamlessly integrated into the live action.

The best effects aren't the ones that make you say "What a great effect!" They're the ones that make you say "That's an effect?"

I'm not really talkinng about the inferred quality of the effect by the audience. I'm simply referring to the overall difficulty and technological needs to create said effect. I agree many films have flawlessly done effects, but if they just build off of standard practices, IMO, it isn't as impressive as attempting something far more than that.

I haven't seen M&C so I won't comment on those effects. But the problem with something like Matrix and Star Wars is that there are so many effects, all anyone pays attention to are the obvious ones. We laud the movies with invisible effects, then put down the ones with obvious ones. But no one seems to note that Star Wars, Matrix, LoTR, are movies with MANY invisible effects that none of us ever see. It's only the exceptionally difficult things that stand out, like the Burly Brawl where the CG is the main event. But those seem to take precedence and people forget about all the other quite impressive things done in these films. Not to mention I myself am impressed with the attempt to make something like the Burly Brawl. It's insanely difficult and quite franly, I think they did decent job not perfect, but probably about as good as anyone can do these days.

[Suprmallet]

Originally posted by jaeufraser
I'm not really talkinng about the inferred quality of the effect by the audience. I'm simply referring to the overall difficulty and technological needs to create said effect. I agree many films have flawlessly done effects, but if they just build off of standard practices, IMO, it isn't as impressive as attempting something far more than that.

And what, exactly, did the two Matrix sequels attempt that was far more than what has already been established? What did the two Matrix sequels do that the two new Star Wars films haven't done, for example? How is the army of sentinels that different from some of the climactic sequences in Attack of the Clones? Anyway, considering the rules laid down in an above post, I can definitely see why the two Matrix sequels weren't included.

[dabusdriver]

Sierra Disc has a point there. If a bad movie with decent effects can be nominated or even win a Special Effects Oscar (re: Starship Troopers), then why isn't Kangaroo Jack up there on the list?!

[Suprmallet]

Originally posted by dabusdriver
Sierra Disc has a point there. If a bad movie with decent effects can be nominated or even win a Special Effects Oscar (re: Starship Troopers), then why isn't Kangaroo Jack up there on the list?!

I'm willing to bet Kangaroo Jack wasn't even put up for consideration by the studio.

[QuiGonJosh]

this is completely retarded...Revolutions had the most flawless FX I have ever witnessed on the screen outside of the Star Wars Prequels! Insane of the academy...they truly are a worthless hype machine!

[jaeufraser]

Originally posted by Suprmallet
And what, exactly, did the two Matrix sequels attempt that was far more than what has already been established? What did the two Matrix sequels do that the two new Star Wars films haven't done, for example? How is the army of sentinels that different from some of the climactic sequences in Attack of the Clones? Anyway, considering the rules laid down in an above post, I can definitely see why the two Matrix sequels weren't included.

Well, you had an attempt to integrate more photo realistic CG people. The Burly Brawl is slagged upon, but it really was quite a difficult task they set up. Not to mention I do give lots of credit for attempting to compleetely create the visuals with effects as opposed to adding small effects to fill them in. Some hate that...I think it's quite an achievement to do it well. Nonetheless, I would have to go effect by effect to truly judge the merits of each of these films. Not having seen some of the films surely does hamper my judgement on the issue. But I think the academy gets it wrong on visual effects a lot. I think Matrix, then Gladiator, were not the best choices of their respective years.

[troystiffler]

I didn't see anything new in Revolutions.

My respect goes to special effects that require heavy planning, stuntwork, and seemlessly integrate physical effects with CG. There was a LOT of that in The Matrix, a little less in Reloaded, and next-to-none in Revolutions.

Sure, I bet the team behind Revolutions sat behind a computer for years. But it just doesn't seem like a noble thing.

<b>If Revolutions was up for an FX Oscar, TOY STORY should have been nominated too!</b> I'd rather see Bad Boys II win the FX oscar rather than Revolutions.0

Filmmakers need to stop relying on CG, and be a little more inventive with physical effects. So much CG makes a movie feel lazy. Hollywood needs more Michael Bays, Tony Scotts, and Tarantinos.

[jaeufraser]

Originally posted by troystiffler
I didn't see anything new in Revolutions.

My respect goes to special effects that require heavy planning, stuntwork, and seemlessly integrate physical effects with CG. There was a LOT of that in The Matrix, a little less in Reloaded, and next-to-none in Revolutions.

Sure, I bet the team behind Revolutions sat behind a computer for years. But it just doesn't seem like a noble thing.

<b>If Revolutions was up for an FX Oscar, TOY STORY should have been nominated too!</b> I'd rather see Bad Boys II win the FX oscar rather than Revolutions.0

Filmmakers need to stop relying on CG, and be a little more inventive with physical effects. So much CG makes a movie feel lazy. Hollywood needs more Michael Bays, Tony Scotts, and Tarantinos.

Quite frankly I would have no problem having a film like Toy Story or Finding Nemo be allowed to win an award for effects work. The integration of real and CG is a great feat, but so is the complete realization of CG effects. I suppose I just don't have any hatred towards pure CG effects and think they have their own merits alongside every other sort of visual effects. Allow the CG movies to win technical awards...I have no problem with that. Actually why aren't animated films eligible for special effects awards? Because the whole thing is an effect?

[chess]

ACK!!!

in the past 10 posts or so, i've heard how seamlessly CG was integrated in star wars...:whofart:...that starship troopers was a "bad movie"...:confused:...and how hollywood needs more michael bays :eek:

it's like i logged into bizarro world or something!

[movielib]

Originally posted by Sierra Disc
The snub for Kangaroo Jack is what really rankles me here. Are you telling me that a better computer-generated rapping marsupial will ever be created?
It's the worldwide placental conspiracy, that's what it is!

[DealMan]

in the past 10 posts or so, i've heard how seamlessly CG was integrated in star wars......that starship troopers was a "bad movie"......and how hollywood needs more michael bays ...it's like i logged into bizarro world or something!

Ha, I was thinking the same thing. I just rewatched episode I the other day and I have to say, if that's seamless then we're in big trouble.

[Suprmallet]

Originally posted by jaeufraser
Well, you had an attempt to integrate more photo realistic CG people. The Burly Brawl is slagged upon, but it really was quite a difficult task they set up. Not to mention I do give lots of credit for attempting to compleetely create the visuals with effects as opposed to adding small effects to fill them in. Some hate that...I think it's quite an achievement to do it well. Nonetheless, I would have to go effect by effect to truly judge the merits of each of these films. Not having seen some of the films surely does hamper my judgement on the issue. But I think the academy gets it wrong on visual effects a lot. I think Matrix, then Gladiator, were not the best choices of their respective years.

Yes, you had an attempt, but not a succesful one. The CGI Smiths and Neo had a vague resemblance to Hugo Weaving and Keanu Reeves. It wasn't fun to watch that, especially after the fantastic Smith/Neo fight in the first Matrix. I did like the freeway chase, but even that didn't do anything that other movies haven't done. Also, and this is really more of an editing thing, it was very obvious to me when they were using Keanu's double instead of Keanu. Just a personal gripe I have with the sequence. I just feel like some of the sequences in the Matrix sequels were done CGI because it would have been too time consuming to do it manually. Also, at the end of the fight, when Neo zooms off and all the Smiths walk away, you can clearly make out who has a Hugo Weaving head pasted on and who doesn't. Why should that be awarded for best effects? That's slovenly work.

And using this same argument, I can see why the original Matrix won over Episode I. Jar-Jar Binks looked terrible half the time. I still don't know why they made him entirely CGI. I guess the thing to point out is the bit in the rules where it talks about the contribution the effects have to the overall production. If the effects take you out of the movie, as they do in Episode I and both Matrix sequels, then they won't get nominated or win, in favor of things where the effects, obvious or not, help create the world of the film and help the audience suspend disbelief, such as the first Matrix or Master and Commander.

[TREX1993]

Episode One's special effects were evolutionary.
The Matrix's special effects were revolutionary.

'Nuff said...!

[QuiGonJosh]

well said!

[jaeufraser]

Originally posted by TREX1993
Episode One's special effects were evolutionary.
The Matrix's special effects were revolutionary.

'Nuff said...!

Eh, I don't agree with that. Unless Bullet time is truly that revolutionary (I'm sorry but advances in CG animation are way more impressive to me than bullet time, which is a nice gimmick but come on...enough to win an award? not in my opinion.) Jar Jar unfortunately is such a horribly annoying chracter I think people tend to say that just cause of that he's a bad effect. But I think there can be a seperation of artistic and technical quality.

[Groucho]

Originally posted by TREX1993
The Matrix's special effects were revolutionary.Hmm? I guess if you never saw that Gap commerical.

[Michael Corvin]

I never thougt they should have won over Star Wars, Ep.1 for the first movie. Here they rip off a Gap commercial and exploit it with violence rename the effect to make it seem like they created it and beat out a movie with some all digital characters, hell a movie that is 90% visual work. The movie may have sucked to most, but the f/x were pretty amazing.

I didn't think Matrix was all that ground breaking effects wise. Been there done that, just on a smaller scale.

[chess]

sorry fellas, but what the matrix did (bullet time) was infinately more complex than what the gap commercial did. a 90 degree frozen pan with a white background can be set up by any schmuck with enough cameras. a 540 degree (i think) pan with complex backgrounds and characters moving in slow mo takes some serious math and a lot of CG to pull off.

don't get me wrong, the visuals in star wars were pretty impressive too in that they were a very ambitious use of existing techniques, but the CG elements didn't look any better than say, jurassic park.

it's wrong to discount the innovation of the SFX in the first matrix. even today, it's been copied and parodied numerous times, but NEVER correctly. in fact, the parodies tend to look like the gap commercial...90 or 180 degree frozen pan.

fwiw.

this year, RotK will and should win, so it's really all for naught.

[TREX1993]

Originally posted by chess
sorry fellas, but what the matrix did (bullet time) was infinately more complex than what the gap commercial did. a 90 degree frozen pan with a white background can be set up by any schmuck with enough cameras. a 540 degree (i think) pan with complex backgrounds and characters moving in slow mo takes some serious math and a lot of CG to pull off.

don't get me wrong, the visuals in star wars were pretty impressive too in that they were a very ambitious use of existing techniques, but the CG elements didn't look any better than say, jurassic park.

it's wrong to discount the innovation of the SFX in the first matrix. even today, it's been copied and parodied numerous times, but NEVER correctly. in fact, the parodies tend to look like the gap commercial...90 or 180 degree frozen pan.

fwiw.

this year, RotK will and should win, so it's really all for naught.


You beat me to the punch. The Gap commercial visually was dancing, stop all motion, move camera, restart dancing. The bullet-time effect was constant camera motion, constant character motion. Computationally, the frame-to-frame, camera-to-camera interpolation far exceeds the commercial on character movement alone, much less for the above-mentioned fact that the move was longer, on a non-white background, with CG elements (bullets & shock waves) laid in.

For anyone wanting more details on why and what they did was more ground-breaking than the "Jump, Jive, and Wail" spot, check out the October 99 issue of Cinefex. Great article, in a great magazine (may be a bit technical for the casual reader, however...).

Also, here's another excellent article on bullet-time:
http://data.gc.peachnet.edu/home/n/nbro3144/nbro/Bullet%20Time.htm
"Although Bullet-Time was first introduced to the public through the Gap commercial, this was not where the idea was invented. Bullet-Time was specifically invented for the feature film The Matrix."