Best Visual Effects of 2003?
so true
12-31-03 | 05:38 PM
#53
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 3,818
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From: Kansas City, MO
Originally posted by chucks888
For me, ROTK easily. The scale, the scope, the artistry. I'm just curious what you guys considered some of the 'bad' shots? Don't get me wrong, not being confrontational here- you are entitled to thinking ROTK had some flawed effects. To me, everything looked very tight and polished.
For me, ROTK easily. The scale, the scope, the artistry. I'm just curious what you guys considered some of the 'bad' shots? Don't get me wrong, not being confrontational here- you are entitled to thinking ROTK had some flawed effects. To me, everything looked very tight and polished.
-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.
Last edited by caiman; 12-31-03 at 05:42 PM.
12-31-03 | 05:48 PM
#54
DVD Talk God
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.
01-27-04 | 03:19 PM
#55
DVD Talk Hero
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 39,937
Received 1,697 Likes
on
1,209 Posts
From: Somewhere between Heaven and Hell
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.
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.
