“Avatar”Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones
"District 9"
Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken
"District 9"Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken
“Star Trek”
Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanaugh, Burt Dalton
15 comments:
Dying to see how the Predictinator (TM?) calls this one! It doesn't seem like a tough year to get it right, though...;)
salsa said...
>Dying to see how the Predictinator (TM?) calls this one! It doesn't seem like a tough year to get it right, though...;)
Thanks, salsa!
Even though this year might be a slam dunk, this will test the validity of the formula's strength. If it is, indeed, a slam dunk, its Predictinator score would have to tower over the competition. Stay tuned for Part 3!
YES! "Star Trek" is in!
"District 9," on the other hand, was not much more impressive fx-wise than "Cloverfield." Personally, I thought they could've selected "Transformers 2" in its place. But at least it got a nod for Best Sound.
Both "Transformers" movies had absolutely wicked sound mixing.
I just hope next year they start nominating 5 for Best VFX.
Glad to see Trek in there.
D9 had terrific fx and a good story.
I'm glad it was picked over Transformers 2. ILM's work was good but that was about it.
I am routing for District 9 but I am very sure that Avatar will crack the nod.
Too bad for Transformers 2, it was my fav vfx movie this year...
I'm cheering up for District 9, tho... or Star Trek (also because I met Roger).
Alright! Congratulations to the artists and supervisors on "Avatar", "District 9" and "Star Trek"! Way to go Weta Digital, Image Engine and of course, my favourite company in the whole, wide world, ILM! :D
It's a shame that "Transformers 2" didn't get a nomination, but as 'vfx fan' said, at least it DID get a nod for 'best sound mixing'. Hopefully "Transformers 2" snags that award, I think that it deserves some good news about it.
I have yet to actually see "District 9", so I can't make a judgement call on its vfx, but from what I've seen, it has some great stuff! (Still would've preferred "Transformers 2" in its place instead...) "Transformers 2" had, in my opinion, the best visual effects of the year, save for "Avatar", and even then, I think that they're close. "Transformers" just can't seem to get that well deserved vfx award! Darn you, talking polar bears!!!
My personal final three predictions were exactly this, except for instead of "District 9", I predicted "Transformers 2", with of course, "Avatar" taking the award.
However, this year goes against my own PERSONAL 'Predictinator' predictions. From the year 2000 and on, ILM has gotten 2/3 nominations in every odd-numbered year (2001, 2003, 2005, 2007) and only 1/3 nominations for the even years (2000, 2002, 2004, 2008) [2006 is the one exception with "POC:DMC"], and NO OTHER company has gotten 2 nominations ever. Well, this year it certainly changed. ILM only has 1 nomination (in an odd-numbered year), and Weta Digital has 2! *gasp* ("Stop the vfx presses!")
And 'vfx fan' brings up a good point. Why is the 'visual effects Oscar' the only category with only 3 nominees, as opposed to 5? I mean, if there were more categories with only 3 I wouldn't mind, but really? It's the ONLY category with ONLY 3? That's just not right. If everyone else has 5 nominations, why not visual effects? If that were the case, then "Transformers 2" would've definitely been in there. Heck, if there were 4 nominees, then "Transformers 2" would've made it!
Seriously, Todd, you should get on the phone with the Academy right now and bring that up! ;)
I think the 3 nomination slots might be a result of the fx branch itself, not the whole academy. I could be wrong.
This category has needed 5 spots for a long time.
shanep said..."This category has needed 5 spots for a long time."
-Agreed, shanep. I agree with this ALL too much.
My understanding for the 3 nominations instead of 5 is a trade off to allow more names to be listed for the nomination and hence receive an award.
I'm happy with the list of nominees as the award is for the 'Best Achievement in Visual Effects' and 'District 9' achieved quite a bit for the budget they had to work with. Unfortunately, from now on budgets will be going the direction of 'District 9' and expectations will be towards 'Avatar'.
:-/
Hi,
This is my 1st time commenting on this blog and 1st of all, have to thank you for all these good stuff
But regarding the nominees... with no disrespect to Star Trek people, 2012 was much more of VFX work than Trek. Like it's not really fair that they factor the *quality* of the movie regarding the *quality* of VFX. (No... I didn't work on the show. I'm just saying as a general observant)
Hell, when they released the top-16 for the bake-off, I was baffled they didn't include "Cloudy with a chance of meatballs".
Just the quality of renders are something that Pixar dreams about. ILM made such a big deal about their "Pyramid rbd-sim"... Cloudy has a full-on food-dam rbd-sim
Like I can completely see why they nominated D9 (just because of the budget factor - the quality of effects really lose their shine when you watch the movie in blu-ray)
Anyway.. All I wanted to mention was just the whole process is not that fair
Congrats to all the nominees, well deserved for the most part. Thought Trek's vfx were of a much higher artistry than 2010's and warranted the nod. I seem to be the only person who doesn't rate District 9. The film started well with some interesting ideas but quickly turned into a shoot em up as dreary as Transformers 2 that I just wanted to be over. The fx are good given the budget but don't totally convince me.
And why should budget be a consideration anyway? Should we discount Avatar because they had plenty? The District 9 crew obviously had enough to get the job done so why are people cutting it so much slack? I'm sure it was hard but then it seems all vfx shows are hard nowadays for all companies. I don't wish to see the studios further beat up on the vfx guys, but they do keep delivering great work under difficult circumstances, so the studios are going to naturally assume it's all doable.
shora said...
"But regarding the nominees... with no disrespect to Star Trek people, 2012 was much more of VFX work than Trek."
-Unfortunately, 'MORE' visual effects does not necessarily mean'BETTER'. I believe that both films had great visual effects, and that they both entertained me and did their job of having me escape real life for 2 hours (or more) [real life is boring]. If the 'visual effects Oscar' had 5 nominees, then I believe that "Transformers 2" AND "2012" would've been in there with "Trek", "D9" and "Avatar". Oh well, maybe someday...
"Like it's not really fair that they factor the *quality* of the movie regarding the *quality* of VFX."
-I agree with you there. I understand that a good story and a well-thought plot help make films a better thing, but when it comes to the 'VISUAL EFFECTS OSCAR', then you consider the quality of the visual effects, and how they contributed to the film as a whole. In the case of "Transformers 2", they are some of the-if not THE-best parts of the films. However, I'm not a judge nor a professional filmmaker, and thus, cannot change this or hope to understand.
why people say that 2012 should be noimnated instead of star trek, why not instead of district 9? i don't undestand. if budget restraints and overall quality of the movie dosen't matter to judge the vfx, then the supposed superior complexity of 2012 effects is more evident if compared to district 9 than star trek.
btw, i think is better to have 3 nominations instead of 5. whith only 3 nom, getting a nod is almost as important as winning the actual award. with 5 nominations only the winner of the oscar will be remembered.
I never thought "2012" had great fx, they were just cool to look at. For the most part, it's been done before, just a lot more of it in this movie. Kinda like "Transformers 2."
Post a Comment