Originally posted by Darth Sadistic
Well, I saw two of the three films nominated for makeup and I love Star Wars, but honestly, the makeup in the Narnia film was better.
You have got to be kidding me. No way.
BTW the Academy never liked George (at least not after the films became a billion-making machine) so I'm not surprised.....bas*ards!
Personally I thought Stewart pulled it off, being a host is never easy, I thought he was witty.
On the note, I did not approve of the acting awards but I was overjoyed by the surprise win for best picture.
Originally posted by Darth Sadistic
No, not kidding at all really. I'm one of the biggest Star Wars fans out here, but thought Narnia's make up was better with the fauns, the red and black dwarfs, other creatures, etc.
I thought it was at least ten times easier than the SW one. And I wouldn't just say this if I knew nothing about it. The thing about fantasy creatures is really a cliché now, at least SW is original. 🙂
Originally posted by Eleonora
I thought it was at least ten times easier than the SW one. And I wouldn't just say this if I knew nothing about it. The thing about fantasy creatures is really a cliché now, at least SW is original. 🙂
Actually, Narnia was written long before Star Wars. And with the success of Narnia, LOTR, and HP, I believe that fantasy is still quite alive and well.
That being said, we can agree to disagree about the makeup award.
Remember me? First time back since...
I really don't think the Academy members know what the heck they're looking for when they're deciding on best effects. It's ridiculous...
I really think they can see something as amazing as, for example, the first shot of the Utapau dwellings...which look unbelievable...and not really have it sink in that they are looking at something that has been created out of nothing...a virtual and believable environmnet...or characters like Yoda (on the Blockade Runner or in the "Records" room), or Padme's ship landing on Mustafar...it's an unbelievably, amazingly, huge accomplishment...I really think it's so good that they don't even realize it's something...created out of nothing...that looks like it's there. It seriously goes over their heads.
For the sheer number of effects in Episode III, and occasional top notch ones at that, it should've gotten the award. No doubt, the Star Wars ILM crew are like "whatever...anyone who knows anything about effects knows we kicked butt."
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
No doubt, the Star Wars ILM crew are like "whatever...anyone who knows anything about effects knows we kicked butt."
True enough, and ILM did some of the work on the Narnia film as well. I think there were actually 3 effects companies working together on LWW. So, at least ILM did get a nod in its nomination for its work on that film.
I can think of a few films where the effects were better and more memorable than Revenge Of The Sith.
Everything is CGI, and looks CGI.
Visual effects are about creating something that looks solid. There is no doubt Revenge Of The Sith had amazing visuals, but they were used wrongly. Overkill may be another word to describe it. This is what matters.
Sin City for a start, used all manner of tricks to get itself looking superior, and used its effects perfectly. Compare the transformation of Mickey Rourke into Marv comparred to the plastic looking Emperor, and I think Sin City beats ROTS on many levels.
Batman Begins, decided to try and recreate its visuals using set-work, oldschool techniques and live action. The fact they actually built the Batmobile for real and only relied on CGI when they truly couldn't use anything else (eg the bats) means it got effects that no amount of CGI could achieve. It was very impressive.
Hell take Serenity's opening chase sequence. The rigger thing they were flying/sat on looked like it was truly there, with people actually sat on it, getting attacked by wind and inertia. I can't say that about ROTS' craft sequnces.
King Kongs effects however, were absolute rubbish, across the board, comparred to ROTS, I have to say. The matte work in King Kong is just shabby (see the ship scenes) comparred to ROTS's superior blending (see most of the movie).
Just because Star Wars has cutting edge CGI, doesn't mean it deserves to win a visual effects award. CGI is one aspect of visual effects.
I'd love to agree with the wailing fanboys, but ROTS didn't deserve any prizes above the more superior (both in visuals and overall quality) movies of the year.
Yeah...I think if you gotta make an example of one film that did it right with the effects they created and when and how they used them, Batman Begins is as good as it gets.
I felt though that part in Serenity was frustrating...using limiting camera shots that hid what was actually pushing or pulling that prop. Sure it looked real...but it just felt like the audience wasn't getting to see what it wanted to see...which in this day and age movie effects buffs have grown accustomed to expect (for good or for bad). We've been spoiled.
Good points though Superfly.
Without a doubt Batman Begins had the most seamless Visual Effects last year...
BUT... King Kong himself is, in my opinion, the single greatest visual effect of all time. And I'm assuming that is what swayed the academy's vote... because some of the other FX in the film were just atrocious (see the brontosaur stampede - Worst. Composition. Ever.)
Originally posted by EPIIIBITES
Yeah...I think if you gotta make an example of one film that did it right with the effects they created and when and how they used them, Batman Begins is as good as it gets.I felt though that part in Serenity was frustrating...using limiting camera shots that hid what was actually pushing or pulling that prop. Sure it looked real...but it just felt like the audience wasn't getting to see what it wanted to see...which in this day and age movie effects buffs have grown accustomed to expect (for good or for bad). We've been spoiled.
Good points though Superfly.
Thats the whole style of Serenity/Firefly, its not supposed to be a clean cut film like Star Wars, they do stuff against convention. One of the best things about it really, its so different from everything else.
WHAT?! THEY DIDNT GET SPECIAL EFFECTS?! This is an outrage! Dont tell me Chronicles of Narnia or Memoirs of a Geisha got them!!!! furious those academy nominators dont know SQUAT about good special effects! Star Wars should have at LEAST gotten best make-up!!!! Look at the alien's faces!!!!! Chronicles of NARNIA got it, that movie with BARELY ANY MAKE-UP at all!!!! furious Those idiot academy nominators!!!! Those morons who cant even tell what has good special effects and make-up from a movie that just has a talking beaver and a man in a stupid brown coat who says he's santa!!!! ranting I cant even EXPRESS my fury and irritation!!!!
Originally posted by Council#13
WHAT?! THEY DIDNT GET SPECIAL EFFECTS?! This is an outrage! Dont tell me Chronicles of Narnia or Memoirs of a Geisha got them!!!! furious those academy nominators dont know SQUAT about good special effects! Star Wars should have at LEAST gotten best make-up!!!! Look at the alien's faces!!!!! Chronicles of NARNIA got it, that movie with BARELY ANY MAKE-UP at all!!!! furious Those idiot academy nominators!!!! Those morons who cant even tell what has good special effects and make-up from a movie that just has a talking beaver and a man in a stupid brown coat who says he's santa!!!! ranting I cant even EXPRESS my fury and irritation!!!!
There was a lot of makeup in Narnia and more in visual effects than Mr. Beaver and Father Christmas (Aslan, centaurs, satyrs, fauns, minotaurs, a phoenix, etc). There were 600 people on the set of that film, many of them actually in the movie as different characters or creatures. James McAvoy (Tumnus) spent 3 1/2 to 4 hours in "makeup prep" daily for his scenes.
I think we can all agree that the Academy does not make the best decisions as has been discussed many times in this thread.
Kong got Visual Effects I believe. I can't speak to its being deserving of it or not as I didn't see the film. Star Wars was not nominated, though the effects were good in many areas. However, there were a couple of parts that were a little lacking. The whole Sideous arrest scene comes to mind with Ian's double's face not replaced, a couple of the lightsaber hiccups, etc. Some of the other effects in ROTS were quite good however.