MovieMusic.com Message Boards: Effects noms(not score related, but who cares...)

Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks

Effects noms(not score related, but who cares...)

Archive of old forum. No more postings.

Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

Author	Topic: Effects noms(not score related, but who cares...)

Matt Oscar® Winner	Thanks to Cinescape online for this: "The group of films designated to be participate in the annual "bakeoff" for the special effects Academy Award have been decided. According to a number of sources, the initial group of seven films which will be whittled down to three nominations, are: The Matrix, The Mummy, Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace, Sleepy Hollow, Stuart Little, Wild Wild West and The World Is Not Enough. 15 minute effects reels will be assembled for each film and shown to 200 members of the f/x branch of the Academy who will pick the three films." Anyway: which do you guys think is the best? I vote Matrix. Ill explain that after a few responses.
posted 01-13-2000 08:03 PM PT (US)

Audacity Oscar® Winner	I vote Matrix also. Although Phantom Menace had great special effects and undoubtedly the most out of all the movies, the effects in the Matrix have never been done before. Audacity
posted 01-14-2000 05:36 AM PT (US)

Dan Brecher Oscar® Winner	Phantom Menace will win, but I think The Matrix made far better use of CG technology and created some wonderfuly original effects and is far more deserving of the award... Dan (UK)
posted 01-14-2000 06:17 AM PT (US)

Scott Oscar® Winner	Guys, don't mistake a better film with better visual effects. Matrix was excellent and the visual effects great. Star Wars had the better more advanced effects and effects that were never done before. In fact new technologies were developed in CG in order to provide more realism to the characters. Most of Matrix effects were done before in comercials etc. So, while I consider Matrix the better movie, the visual effects in Star Wars the phantom Menace were quite superior. Let the debate begin... Scott
posted 01-14-2000 09:45 AM PT (US)

Dan Brecher Oscar® Winner	quote: Star Wars had the better more advanced effects and effects that were never done before. Doesn't show IMHO. And I actualy liked TPM more then The Matrix anyhoo. Dan (UK)
posted 01-14-2000 09:59 AM PT (US)

robin4 Oscar® Winner	In my opinion, this is probably one of the hardest decisions, between the Matrix and Star Wars. However, I would have to say that, like the origional, the new one had so many ground breaking effects that it could not be beaten. Like state before, some of the F/X in The Matrix have been used before, though not in movies. Both are excellent and good choices. N.P. Star Wars: A New Hope Special Edition <***/***>
posted 01-14-2000 03:31 PM PT (US)

Jeron Oscar® Winner	...yep, I'd say it's a tie between Matrix and Episode 1. Jeron NP - TND Composer's Cut (Arnold) ***/*** (It's Bond! Bond always gets 5 stars!)
posted 01-14-2000 03:33 PM PT (US)

Matt Oscar® Winner	Scott, dont confuse more special effects with better. More new things had to be done in the Matrix than in TPM. The stuff from commercials was very stone age compared to what matrix added to the technology-eg: the 3d backgrounds in the bullet time scenes. The effects were better and better used. Tho, knowing the academy, TPM will win, just like last year with What Dreams May Come beating Mighty Joe Young. What a crock of **** that was. Actually, TPM did relatively nothing new. They just had to tweak old stuff to get better(yet still imperfect) modeling and movement from their characters. The Mummy did a better job in that respect, IMHO.
posted 01-14-2000 05:13 PM PT (US)

Scott Oscar® Winner	Matt, I hate this but anyway. It is a known fact that every single effect in Matrix had been done before, just watch the gap commercials which actually started the multi-revolving imaging process so nicely done in Matrix. All other effects were done before.In fact it is the other way around, the effects in Matrix were tweaked and new technologies invented for PM. Don't mistake a movie you love for better effects. I watched both documentaries on both movies and have the respected books, this time I do know a little bit about the subject. I know I'm gonna get cursed at now so bring it on buddy. Scott
posted 01-14-2000 09:23 PM PT (US)

Matt Oscar® Winner	Remember how in those gap commercials there is no background...how it was just white? Do you have any **ing idea how easy that is? What they did was take a small series of still photographs on a green screen and thats it. No program for the background BECAUSE THERE ISNT ONE. I could set up a rig like that in my garage(with proper funding, hehe). The gap commercials were stone age. Also, do you think those were the only effects? EVERY SCENE IN THE MOVIE HAD DIGITAL EFFECTS. Just because you didnt notice them doesnt mean they were not there. From tinting the images green or blue, to changing the sky to colorless, to adding images into Morpheus' sunglassesl, there are effects everywhere. The documentaries dont tell you much Scott, they are meant for the masses and do not go into depth. You want knowledge...read Cinefex magazine and study the film and commentaries closely. TPM had many effects, but none broke new ground. Matrix took new programs into new directions. Dont mistake obvious CGI for good effects. and that is what TPM had: OBVIOUS EFFECTS. CGI is supposed to be seamless....TPM sure looked digital to me. Books? was not aware there was a book for the Matrix, not until April anyway... come on Scott, you can do better than that. how was TPM groundbreaking? 3D modeling? our buddy Jar Jar-Done better in Dragonheart? CGI backgrounds? um...Matrix, Titanic, What Dreams May Come? im not seeing new ** here.
posted 01-15-2000 12:37 AM PT (US)

Scott Oscar® Winner	You have Cineflex? So do I. Without going into details, (this is my nephs computer) just the effects for some of the characters to have realistic clothing cost ILM a lot of time, money and effort. And I saw so many little mistakes in the Matrix as I have in Phantom, so none of 'em were perfect. But you know what? If Matrix wins I'd be happy although I do believe Phantom should win because to me they were better effects and just put me more in awe. I was in awe of Matrix too but not necassarly because of the effects. Anyway, if you say the effects were better in Matrix, I will yield to you. I'm just in that kinda moot today. Scott
posted 01-15-2000 11:54 AM PT (US)

Dan Brecher Oscar® Winner	Right, that's it. Forget Matrix AND Episode 1, and let Sleepy Hollow get the award. Bloody oscars, total farce anyway. "Grumpy" Dan (UK)
posted 01-15-2000 02:03 PM PT (US)

Matt Oscar® Winner	SLEEPY HOLLOW?? Good lord no. best set design, hell yeah...but effects?? Scott: we cool man
posted 01-15-2000 02:35 PM PT (US)

robin4 Oscar® Winner	I just wanted to back up Scott on that clothing thing. I get the Star Wars Insider and they said that that whole thing with clothing had never been done before and they had to write a new program for it. Just something to think about... N.P. Rodrigo's Concierto de Aranjuez <**.5/***>
posted 01-15-2000 04:34 PM PT (US)

Scott Oscar® Winner	Matt, always. Robin,, thanks, good to know I have somebody in my corner. Scotty
posted 01-15-2000 05:39 PM PT (US)

Chris Kinsinger Oscar® Winner	I've been a special effects buff ever since I saw "Jason And The Argonauts" in 1963. The use of CGI has made it increasingly difficult to select a clear-cut "winner" of the special effects award each year. I also expected "Mighty Joe Young" to win last year (wasn't it just so cool that Ray Harryhausen played a cameo with Terry Moore?), but "What Dreams May Come" was also quite impressive. There are so many problems with the Oscars, and one of them is: why are there only 2 or 3 films nominated for effects each year? Back in the late 60's this was understandable due to the very few effects-laden films released during a given year, but today there are dozens to choose from! Another problem: why only 1 winner? Considering the enormous boom in the effects business due to CGI, I believe it would be appropriate to have several winners each year. My choice for this year's award would be: "The Matrix", however I believe that the Academy will choose "The Phantom Menace".
posted 01-15-2000 06:25 PM PT (US)

H Rocco Oscar® Winner	My two cents (actually with inflation, it's crowding a nickel now): The nominees will be: THE MATRIX THE PHANTOM MENACE STUART LITTLE The winner will be THE PHANTOM MENACE. Never mind what anybody else thinks, the voters will simply see the words STAR WARS and blindly vote. SLEEPY HOLLOW will collect nominations for Cinematography, Art Direction, Makeup and Costumes. It might win Makeup at best. What would I pick? I'm not sure I have a favorite this year, but last year I was quite peeved that MIGHTY JOE YOUNG was snubbed. That's certainly the best work Rick Baker's ever done.
posted 01-17-2000 09:36 PM PT (US)

Old Infopop Software by UBB