tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post3080604010315118533..comments2024-03-22T05:13:51.657-07:00Comments on FXRant: Predicting the Visual Effects Oscar, Part 5Todd Vazirihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09098040041978835594noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-78574025447511173352008-04-24T15:36:00.000-07:002008-04-24T15:36:00.000-07:00Joe, thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts...Joe, thanks for writing and sharing your thoughts on the topic. While I agree with you on most counts, I should comment on a few of your points.<BR/><BR/>>I must say that I think Compass was the most violent and darkest of the three films... so I disagree that the academy would have thought Compass should win because they could take their kids to it.<BR/><BR/>Please remember the context within which this whole discussion is framed; the point of view of the Academy voters is limited, and they are very susceptible to suggestion, advertising, buzz, etc. The *perception* is that "Compass" is the better family-friendly film (based on the one-sheet, the marketing similarities to the Narnia films, children featured prominently in the film, talking animals, etc.), regardless of the reality of the situation. This is why I believe voters favored "Compass" over the other films.<BR/><BR/>>Pirates did not win because it won last year for exactly the same visuals. <BR/><BR/>I disagree - the Maelstrom was prominently featured in the marketing of "Pirates 3," and was not similar, thematically, to imagery in the other films. In a broad sense, you might also argue that "Two Towers" had the same visuals as "Fellowship," as did "Return of the King," and yet *they* all won Oscars.<BR/><BR/>>Transformers will win next year with T2.<BR/><BR/>I find that extremely unlikely. <BR/>>And as Mike said in his speach, it is much harder to create an intimate character driven scene than a splashy spectacle. <BR/><BR/>All things being equal, I agree. And your point about Gollum and Kong drive home the point that the Academy generally rewards films with character-driven visual effects, rather than spectacle - especially over the last 10 years.<BR/><BR/>Again, thanks so much for commenting and sharing your thoughts.<BR/><BR/>-toddTodd Vazirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09098040041978835594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-57027884288247321502008-04-22T17:27:00.000-07:002008-04-22T17:27:00.000-07:00Hi there Todd. I liked your write-up on the awards...Hi there Todd. I liked your write-up on the awards prediction. I wanted to chime in here with perhaps an insider point of view, having been the compositing supervisor on both Transformers and Compass here at Digital Domain.<BR/><BR/>I spent 8 months on TF establishing hard body look development for a the robot shots and 4 months on Compass doing a variety of stuff. By far the hardest I have ever worked was on Compass due to its timeframe but also how complex the visuals were needed to be.<BR/><BR/>I must say that I think Compass was the most violent and darkest of the three films. Bear jaws ripped off and children being severed from their soles or shot at by soldiers. So I disagree that the academy would have thought Compass should win because they could take their kids to it.<BR/><BR/>Pirates did not win because it won last year for exactly the same visuals. Transformers will win next year with T2. Talking animals have been done before but no where near as complex.<BR/><BR/>On a side note, Transformers was made by two FX houses, thus alot easier to keep the look consistent between the shots. Compass was made by 15 FX houses, due to its scale and timeframe. Sometimes 5 houses working on the same shot. To have kept that all looking consistent for 1100 shots compared to 600 for Trans just blows my mind, and my hat is off to Mike Fink for having pulled this off.<BR/><BR/>And as Mike said in his speach, it is much harder to create an intimate character driven scene than a splashy spectacle. Think of Gollum and King Kong, the reasons those films one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-88481773915010417732008-03-22T09:17:00.000-07:002008-03-22T09:17:00.000-07:00Would it not be great for the academy award for be...<I> Would it not be great for the academy award for best visual effects to be voted by a jury of the nominees peers. <BR/><BR/>> That's actually how the British Academy Awards work - the full Academy decides on the nominees, and the individual branches vote on the winners in each categories. </I><BR/><BR/>Keep in mind that The Golden Compass also won the British Academy Awards (BAFTA) for best VFX this year amongst 5 nominees. Transformers wasn't even nominated using this methodology.<BR/><BR/>The Golden Compass had some pretty phenomenal digital character integration.. not only in terms of photoreal imagery, but also in terms of acting/performance that helped the story along. Since most of the academy voters are/were actors.. maybe they just voted for the movie from their point of viewAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-92232589091171441792008-03-20T13:12:00.000-07:002008-03-20T13:12:00.000-07:00Vladimir Sever wrote:>Hi, Todd! Been a reader of V...Vladimir Sever wrote:<BR/>>Hi, Todd! Been a reader of VFX HQ for ages... your comments are golden, and your analysis is usually spot on <BR/><BR/>You're too kind.<BR/><BR/>>(well, aside from the one bit where you confused the Al DiSarro live-action pyro with Boss Film compositing work, but that's all in the past). <BR/><BR/>Oh, boy, I'm racking my brain and I can't remember to what you're referring. Refresh my memory. Was this an error on the site?<BR/><BR/>>For starters, Mike Fink has been in the industry for ages, and a lot of people recognize his name. <BR/><BR/>Really? He may be a big name in the effects business, but I doubt that the majority of Academy voters are familiar with him and his career.<BR/><BR/><BR/>>POTC:AWE was a third sequel in a franchise where the second film just won the Oscar, and the Academy perhaps felt that another award only a year later would be overdoing it for "more of the same" (as perceived by them). <BR/><BR/>Yes, but remember, just recently "Lord of the Rings" won the Oscar three consecutive years for visual effects.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for writing Vladimir! I really appreciate all your comments.Todd Vazirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09098040041978835594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-7312835230723471282008-03-19T21:28:00.000-07:002008-03-19T21:28:00.000-07:00el pollo loco wrote:>Would it not be great for the...el pollo loco wrote:<BR/>>Would it not be great for the academy award for best visual effects to be voted by a jury of the nominees peers. <BR/><BR/>That's actually how the British Academy Awards work - the full Academy decides on the nominees, and the individual branches vote on the winners in each categories.Todd Vazirihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09098040041978835594noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-70308113586909200022008-03-19T18:09:00.000-07:002008-03-19T18:09:00.000-07:00Hi, Todd! Been a reader of VFX HQ for ages -- well...Hi, Todd! Been a reader of VFX HQ for ages -- well, the ages past -- and I just recently discovered your blog. I can't tell you how glad I am to see you posting again: your comments are golden, and your analysis is usually spot on (well, aside from the one bit where you confused the Al DiSarro live-action pyro with Boss Film compositing work, but that's all in the past). And to see you work as a TD at ILM of all places -- wohoo! Couldn't have happened to a better person.<BR/><BR/>As for the Oscars -- while I was as stunned as everyone with the TGC win, I don't think it's as implausible as the consensus is.<BR/>For starters, Mike Fink has been in the industry for ages, and a lot of people recognize his name. Another thing, POTC:AWE was a third sequel in a franchise where the second film just won the Oscar, and the Academy perhaps felt that another award only a year later would be overdoing it for "more of the same" (as perceived by them). That left us with a contest between TF and TGC, both character animation shows that started new franchises (one successful Stateside, one successful internationally -- your B.O. numbers wouldn't be so skewed if you figured in the major international success of TGC, $300M and counting). Transformers had hard-body models galore, but The Golden Compass had oodles of furry animals, birds and whatnot, along with major digital environments and stunning new vistas. Both films depended on those to tell their story, TGC to an arguably larger extent (as half the cast there were speaking and performing CG creations, while the Transformers were apparently considered an addendum to the actual characters).<BR/><BR/>Yes, the effects work in TF looks more photoreal, but the challenge of all that fur and integration into synthetic environments might have been perceived as greater; i.e. less of the case of "been there, done that", even if that's not factually true.<BR/><BR/>Plus, even in its presently cut and mangled form, TGC is intellectually a more intriguing movie than either of the competitors. This isn't readily apparent among the film geeks online, nor among my fellow US critics (who abhor ambition above all), but might have been felt among the Academy members.<BR/><BR/>Finally, this might have been a sympathy vote for a movie that was mercilessly critiqued by some facets of the religious establishment, sight unseen. Again, mostly in America -- it did well with both audiences and critics elsewhere, but RT won't tell you that.<BR/><BR/>So while I do hope that this win leads to the His Dark Materials sequels, I'm convinced that ILM's good work will be honored by the Academy soon enough, perhaps as soon as next year.<BR/><BR/>Take care, and don't lose heart!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37846398.post-38444274324162791762008-03-13T22:00:00.000-07:002008-03-13T22:00:00.000-07:00Would it not be great for the academy award for be...Would it not be great for the academy award for best visual effects to be voted by a jury of the nominees peers. I find it quite ridiculous that these "suits", old men or who ever vote for the academy, judge excellence in work without even knowing what excellence in that chosen field is...for shame and a curse on both their houses. And to think that some never even watch that film, and yet have the audacity to vote on it. Transformers should have won strictly because of its technically superior effects over the others, pirates and talking bears are very outdated and have been accomplished with great success in the past. Visual effects awards should be given to movies that leap tall buildings in a single bound. Compass's talking animals was already done in Narnia and past pirate movies have already exhausted and usurped world's end effects. Predictions and voting are more based on what the Academy "thinks of certain companies or directors" rather than the award being given to people and places that push and expand the medium into visions that not even Christ can see. Nuff said.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com