I understand what you mean there. He is clearly CG in those action sequences. I have no qualms with how he animates though. I think the slightly 'off' look of his movement was intentional to suggest his unnatural way of 'action'(mounting a cave troll, climbing a mumakil etc) movement being that he's an elf. There are plenty of CG doubles throughout all three movies but I don't think anyone ever complains about any other shots.

The Matrix movies win hands down for me, and the fact that neither of them are even considered is ridiculous. POTC was impressive, but nothing great.

It's a crime that they're overlooked/ignored.

ROTK
Matrix(s)
M & C

would be the top three effects movies of the year for me.

I'm surprised the matrix wasn't listed, personally I think RotK will win and it will be well deserved. Even though the effects are great, I think PotC was listed just because it's Disney

I heard somewhere that to be considered for a VFX nomination the studio has to submit the film for consideration, something that WB didn't do this year. That's why Revolutions isn't nominated.

That sounds plausible- in which case it's their(WB) own fault. Otherwise there's just no way you recognize Peter Pan, Pirates and T3 for outstanding visual effects in place of the Matrix.

Source? I think this is somewhat unlikely, especially in light of all the lip-service Joel Silver paid to the movie and its visuals. Considering Warner's thin slate of successes this year, you'd think they would push for any and every nomination they could possibly get.

I too believe that one of the reasons no Matrix film was nominated was the fact that John Gaeta shot his mouth off from here to there, boasting about how seamless the CG "Burly Brawl" fighters were (they weren't...it was obvious who was CG and who wasn't) and bitching about how everyone had "stolen" their visuals for homage/parody/rip-off (as if the Matrix didn't have an unusually high number of simularities with Dark City, including many of the effects). Nobody confused the effects in The Matrix with those in Deuce Bigalo: Male Gigalo, but apparently Gaeta forgot the old adage "Imitation is the sincerest form of flatterty."

I wish I still had the actual magazine interview, but when you state to the public about Reloaded "Now, nobody is going to be able to copy us because we're so much more advanced than everybody else" (this is paraphrased, but tonally correct) you can't rely on those accused "copy-cats" to nominate you come December. Also, the effects community is a close one, and many people bounce from project to project, studio to studio. If you insult your so-called "competitors", in the long run you probably will be insulting your own co-workers. Bad call...

bar none: Peter Pan takes the cake in my opinion. My jaw was on the floor. The action scenes were top notch and the effects did their job to convey a fantastic world, the flight into Neverland and the the blazing face in the sun were breathtaking. I really want this to win.

in regards to the shoddy shots in ROTK...a couple of shots of Legolas on the Oliphunt...and mainly some pretty bad composite work...

That shot didn't look perfect, but it looked 200% better than anakin on that antelope thing in the field in Episode 2.

Anakin riding a big ass bubble butt animal and Legolas standing atop a big ass Oliphunt are two completely different FX...and AOTC has FX miles above LOTR...imo

rotfl so true

Let me first say that I loved this movie. In fact, it's one of my all time favorite movies. And 98% of the CGI is absolutely incredible. There are many, many shots that totally amaze me. But there is a small handful of bad ones as well. Off the top of my head:

-The wide shot of Merry and Pippin sitting on the wall at Isengard. Very poor and obvious CGI characters. They didn't match the environment at all.

-The shot of Pippin climbing up/down the tower when he lights the beacon. It wasn't as bad as the Isengard shot, but it looked pretty bad.

-Some of the digital composite shots of the hobbits surrounded by the big people. The two I can think of are when Merry and Pippin are dancing on the table at Edoras, and when everyone bows to the four hobbits on top of Minas Tirith. Not horrible, but pretty obvious effects shots.

-Much of the bluescreen work looked sorta off. One shot I remember in particular is when we first see Sam and Frodo in their Orc disguises. They are walking against a backdrop of Mordor, and it just doesn't look right. This happens many times throughout all three movies (the worst is with Treebeard).

-The CGI Legolas. Or pretty much any time they use a CG stand-in for one of the main characters, it just doesn't look totally real.

But that covers a VERY small % of all the effects in this movie. The rest, as far as I can recall, are simply astonishing.

I'd have to say Matrix Revolutions, more specifically when all the robot things were coming through the hole in the roof of Zion. I am very rarely impressed with CGI, but with this I was.

How did the VFX Board choose?
 

Interesting article from Don Shay at Cinefex:

Nominations were announced today for the 76th annual Academy Awards. As determined by the visual effects branch of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, three films will vie for best visual effects: The Return of the King, Master and Commander and Pirates of the Caribbean. The branch -- comprised of some 250 effects professionals -- met last week for what has become known as the 'bakeoff' to review and choose the most worthy candidates from among the films released in 2003. Others considered in the customary field of seven were The Hulk, Peter Pan, Terminator 3 and X2.

Artists representing each of the films were given five minutes to discuss the work on their particular project before presenting a 15-minute effects reel and then following up with an additional three minutes of discussion or questions. Branch members -- who had earlier been sent written materials on all seven films -- then voted secretly to select the top three. A final vote by all Academy members will determine the Oscar recipient.

Lingering over the proceedings was a gnawing question: What about The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions? How could two of the biggest effects films of the year fail even to make the bakeoff? Was it personal? Was it political? Or did the 40-member visual effects steering committee, charged with whittling the year's contenders down to seven, find these films somehow lacking in merit?

Cinefex sat down with veteran visual effects supervisor Richard Edlund, chairman of the Academy visual effects branch since its formation nine years ago, to discuss the selection process.

Cinefex: How does one become a member of the visual effects branch?

You need to be in a key creative position in the industry for eight years and be sponsored by two branch members. You then come up before the executive committee -- which currently has 34 members -- and a simple majority vote is required for selection. Someone who has been in the industry for a shorter time, but has done something particularly laudatory, may also be considered; but, in that case, the executive committee must vote unanimously.

Cinefex: How about the steering committee that selects the bakeoff films?

That committee consists of the executive committee, plus a few extras to bring the number up to 40. These are top people in the business, representing all disciplines, including physical effects. And the committee is diversified in that no one company has more than one or two representatives.

Cinefex: How are the bakeoff films selected?

We begin by reading off the names of all the movies that have qualified for Academy consideration. From that list, we select those that have enough effects to warrant discussion. This year, about 40 made that first cut. After that, we go through each film, and anyone on the committee is free to discuss its merits or failings. In the course of that process, we come up with our short list -- which this year was 19 films. Then everybody completes a ballot on which they can rank order up to ten movies. Price Waterhouse tabulates the votes and the seven top films are announced the next day.

Cinefex:A lot of people were shocked that neither of the Matrix films made the list.

I was surprised myself. The balloting is secret, but I can only assume that it missed by a vote or two. I think the studio was partially at fault. Rather than have the two Matrix films compete against each other and split the vote, Warner Brothers withdrew Matrix Reloaded from consideration -- which it was entitled to do -- leaving only Revolutions. I think a lot of people felt that the second one should have been put up, and not the third. Plus Revolutions was released late in the year and Warners was very tight about letting anybody who worked on the effects talk about it. It was a big secret. And a lot of people were just 'matrixed' out. Any of these factors could have had an effect on the vote. Still, it was great work, and it should not have been overlooked.

Cinefex: What are your criteria for selection? How do you weigh number of shots versus degree of difficulty versus technical innovation versus ...

Versus support of the drama. Right. To be honest, I don't know how you do that. We have no stated criteria. The field is just too broad and encompasses too many disciplines. How do you gauge Gollum against a sea battle? How do you judge fantasy effects versus reality-based effects? Three years ago, Dinosaur -- which had about 1,000 visual effects shots in it -- failed to get a nomination, while Gladiator, which had only about 70, went on to win the Oscar. Why? Because, to a degree, voting is always subjective. Everyone has to establish his own criteria based on personal experience and expertise. By and large, I think the system works. Every now and then a film slips by; but for the most part, the visual effects steering committee has a good record of picking the cream of the crop.