I decided to start again (it becomes sort of "traditional") with the VFX nominations (not that I would really have a choice, it's the only section where I've seen all movies...). So... the effects in "Deepwater Horizon", the story of the disaster happened in 2010 on a drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico, are focused mostly on the fire during that event. Without too many comments, I find this entry a bit as an outsider here...
"Doctor Strange" has effects that reminded me of "Inception". However, a bit too colored for my taste...
"The Jungle Book" brings probably the best on-screen rendering since "Planet of the Apes" for CGI animals. Actually, pretty much everything seen there is CGI, and considering both the volume of effects in this movie and also that the result is a really nice piece of work makes this a favorite in this category. Leaving aside the topic of the current entry for one second, I did not expect to like the movie. It was a nice surprise. I have no idea how much of it was mere nostalgia but it's also a very catchy version for Kipling's stories. A different ending from the classic animation, surprisingly less mature I would say, but overall more happy :)
I wrote about "Kubo and the Two Strings" last year. Regarding the VFX it's probably the most complex animation I've ever seen. Maybe Aardman's stuff gets close, but I don't think they've reached this level yet. I have an objective preference here.
Finally, we have "Rogue One". We could get a surprise here, but I can't say that I've seen something very impressive. Although as a movie was better, the VFX was pretty much on par with "The Force Awakens". Maybe I'm subjective, but well...
Verdict: "The Jungle Book" will probably win, but my vote goes to "Kubo".
Yup, I know. I'm late with the entry promised for last week. Compensating with a 2-in-1. Sort of. Meaning that I thought there's room for both VFX and makeup today, since anyway we mostly have overlapping titles.
"Ex Machina" starts the nominations series for visual effects. I find it a bit as a "category fill" item here. Maybe I'm subjective, since I found the movie way more pretentious than what it actually delivers. Of course, Ava - who's 99% the subject of the nomination, looks good, but I don't find it groundbreaking in any way. And we have groundbreaking material below ...
"Mad Max: Fury Road" is my prediction for both VFX and Makeup. I won't write again all what I already did in the movie's entry last year. What we have here is a resurrection of "for real" VFX = non-CGI (although we have CGI too, as you can observe below). It's the only movie I've noticed using real staged visual effects at this scale in a long long time. About the makeup, I'm no expert, bt it's clearly the most "visible" among all nominees.
"The 100-Year-Old-Man Who Climbed Out the Window and Disappeared" is a pleasant surprise in this year's nominees list. It scored in makeup, and I can say it's a lesson given to some Hollywood titles, such as "J. Edgar" for instance, in respect to "aging" a character. The year passing on a guy's face looks much more natural in this Swedish comedy that's a sort of a northern Forrest Gump, much much colder, and way less serious.
"Star Wars: The Force Awakens" is seen by many as a VFX winner. I disagree. It looks too ... common for me. It's simply in the same line of recently released movies. Besides the swords, what we see here is not far from what we also saw in "Transformers", "Avengers", etc...
"The Martian" offers planet Mars as a VFX subject. Again, it looks like an entry that stays in the average range of what we typically have here. More I would say, it's even "eclipsed" by last year's "Interstellar" :) ...
"The Revenant" scored nominations on both VFX and Makeup. Unfortunately the clip below is centered on the second, but it's the only I found which displays a couple frames from a scene that I say it makes it the main contender against "Mad Max" for VFX ( and also my wishful winner :) ). It's of course the bear scene, which I think we can consider the next level in CGI, at least from what I've seen by now (maybe "Planet of the Apes" gets slightly close). Well, we'll see where the votes are going ...
I'm having a really bad week (try replacing a CPU fan in an ultrabook with a piece directly ordered from China manufactured following the typical "cable length economy" design & get also a power kill static discharge in the process .. and that's a light experience ...). So I'm not really in mood for long debates. Despite the fact that VFX is one of the few of this years Oscar sections where we actually have decent contenders.
The first nomination is for "Captain America: The Winter Soldier". Although one of the movies that put me to sleep last year while watching in the cinema (no kiddin' = I really got my eyes closing), that was not the fault of the VFX. As usual the guys from ILM did their job and the result looks really good. Still, I wouldn't bet on it considering what follows ...
The first serious contender here is "Dawn of the Planet of the Apes". The first part surprisingly lost the VFX Oscar in 2012 against .. "Hugo". So this year I won't find surprising if what WETA did here is again ignored (especially since the competition is more solid). And that's unfortunate ... because we have more than we had in the first movie, and it's by far ( at least based on my unauthorized :) but objective opinion ) the movie that had the most complex work done on VFX of all the nominees. I think it's probably the most impressive film in respect to motion capture released by now. But, I'm not picking the winner, so ...
"Guardians of the Galaxy" is the opposite of the first nomination above. We have a movie that doesn't let you check out your watch, but where the effects (except some of the characters) do not really shine compared with the usual Marvel movie offering. Still, they're not bad :) ...
And the winner is ... "Interstellar". I'm expecting for this to get the Oscar, despite the lack of objectivity in the decision. This movie was totally snubbed on this year's nominations. I find it unbelievable comparing with last year's position of "Gravity" as a favorite for everything. I don't know if we're gonna witness a "Matrix reloaded" from the Oscar perspective (= long, long ago, in 2000 "Matrix" was getting 4 awards out of 4 nominations, although not on the most important sections), but for VFX I'm almost certain for this result. The fact that the choice is not an objective one relates also to the cinematography. Where, unbelievable, but "Interstellar" didn't get a nomination, and where Hoyte van Hoytema shows why 2D is still far to be dead even in a SciFi. But since "the Academy" is not really able lately to distinguish where VFX ends and cinematography begins (or vice versa) ...
"X-Men: Days of Future Past" is the third Marvel movie that got here and the one which sums the negative parts from the other two. More boring than "Captain America 2" (sorry, but for movies involving time travel has also the worst plot line of what I've seen in the last years), and with effects that don't show much more than what we've seen in the previous episodes ...
From the five nominations on VFX for this year, I've already had individual entries on four movies. So, since I'm anyway writing again at some weird hour in the middle of the night, I'll try not to spend much time and leave the visuals to tell more .. ( it should be in the "spirit" of the category after all :) )
First on the list is "Gravity". I'll stick to the opinion in my last year's entry that this movie is quite overrated. But I have to admit, despite the lack of impact as story feeling, that technically-wise the level achieved is pretty high. And that makes the VFX to be probably one of the easiest to predict categories of the year = my bet goes here. Following, one of the many pieces composing what you get to see on screen, and how much is behind it ...
I don't know if I'm right to say that "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" is better on VFX than the first part, but I think what we get to see on this one is a bit more varied. And you finally meet the Dragon ;) The guys from Weta Digital did their job again, as it can be seen below ...
"Iron Man 3" is the only title here about which I didn't write before. Considering how much I "like" super-hero movies, this was a nice surprise. Actually, I guess it's the only movie in 2013 on this genre that I managed to digest without any problems. Way above "Iron Man 2" (I still can't get over the association: Mickey Rourke = evil brilliant scientist), and I think even a bit better than the first in the series. Since it's one of the increasingly rare cases when the movie offers quite a lot beyond what the trailer gives (if I remember correctly), I'll refrain from extra spoilers. Getting back to VFX, as far as I know is a collaboration between multiple studios (including also the above mentioned Weta). The costume animations seem to come from Trixter .. as the nice following montage tells us ..
"The Lone Ranger" was the most unpredictable nomination to get here. As pleasantly surprised I am to see that it's still possible to get 2D movies appreciated for VFX, I am intrigued by the "Pacific Rim" absence (well, I think I said something about too much of that movie being "shot" on night during rain :P). Here we have plenty of CGI, especially for simulated environments - trains, trees, more trains, more trees, even rabbits ..
It seems highly unlikely for "Star Trek: Into Darkness" to have a chance here, but I'm glad it got at least the nomination. Unlike for instance the music score, reason (on which I can also add the absence of "Rush" there) for which I guess this year I'll boycott that section. Getting back on topic though, I'll wrap up the entry of today with the VFX in one of the best SciFi I've seen in the recent years (and one with a decent story, unlike the other end of this list) ...
As in the other years I start with the VFX, not that I have any specific reason, but again it's the only category (up to the present moment) where I've seen all the nominations. Even that after all it doesn't really matter who wins (the Oscar season is just a reason to watch some decent movies), what we have here could be probably split in 1 favorite, 2 average chances nominations, and 2 outsiders. Let's see quickly who is who, until my current cold teleports me to bed (talking about effects ...)
"The Avengers" is as it's probably known a story with a bunch a super-heroes, one piece super-villain (a bit lame the balance of forces to be honest) and many many visual effects if we're at this part ... I repeat myself saying that I'm still not impressed by this genre, but we had a bit of variation though from the classic story (the one with "very bad mentally deranged evil guy"+"good guy with life issues.. & superpowers, that finally beats the issues.. & the bad guy"+"some damsel in more or less distress around"). A variation of something like 3 lines from a synopsis of 5 (to be critic all the way :P). What can I say, overall an entertaining action movie. And as effects is somewhere in the middle of the nominations.
About "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" I wrote already not very long ago, and I don't see any reason to repeat myself. Maybe just the part that we have a lot of the screen time taken by the battles vs. orcs and vs. goblins => a solid quantity of CGI => pretty equal chances with the above nomination here. And let's not forget about Gollum, even if his presence is relatively short. I don't know why, although some of the opinions have sense, the clip below left me a sort of bitter taste. And I'm thinking that it did it also to the make-up team (which by the way - has a nomination also, but about that maybe on another entry).
And we get to the potential expected winner here, namely "Life of Pi". Again, I've written about the movie not very long ago, so I'll summarize now what I don't remember to have said (unless my memory is not shorter than I think ..). More exactly, the tiger as many others from the boat and besides the boat are CGI. Yup, although maybe not very believable (considering how good is the result) the scenes are CGI .. well not 100%. As additional info to the clip below, what I've found out is that they used three tigers when filming, but not in the film context. Probably you wouldn't want to share a boat with a tiger, no matter if you're a young Indian actor wishing for an international breakthrough on the big screen :) ..
I also wrote about "Prometheus" sometime last summer, and not very nicely if I remember well, so I prefer not to remember much. The effects though I remember that were a good part of this movie. The chance makes that not long ago to be able to visit the H.R.Giger museum (the original "Alien" designer) and to realize how well resisted in time the concept art from the first movie, which is heavily used in the la production from last year. Unfortunately though, that's sort of a minus part for the innovative ( it already got an Oscar in '79 :) ) and I don't think that as general complexity the rest has any chance to compete with any of the titles above.
And like that we get to the last entry on the list, last alphabetically, last as effects, last generally speaking, the last: "Snow White and the Huntsman". What's to be said here ... it's probably one of the most boring movies that I've seen last year. I won't ever bother writing about unnecessary lengths, cliche lines, and a messy result for an idea that actually is relatively decent as a classic story adaptation. Not even the effects aren't enough the give some soul to this movie that looks like it bit the apple at the first frame, and the only thing that saved it from time to time, ironically, is the evil queen = the acting of Charlize Theron.
Ok .. I'm back. Unfortunately, I don't have much time on my hands, but enough to start my pass through few of this years' categories with the VFX one. So, let's take the nominees one by one as they're officially anounced (= alphabetical):
It's been a while since the last "Harry Potter" came out in cinemas. Sufficient enough to cause me the same trouble I've always had with this series (too long and too re-entangled from one episode to the other due to the classic syndrome of "I have no clue how I'm gonna finish this" from the author's mind .. which can be felt from miles away even from the first movie). The trouble is I don't remember enough details to make at least a coherent summary of the story (obviously except the part in which Voldemort dies and Harry lives). Not to be mean, the movie was ok, but as the rest of them in my opinion quite far from LotR or Stardust or Neverending Story, just to give only three different options as a fantasy. But I was talking about VFX, so back to the point. It's clearly visually the most spectacular from all the parts (this, I can remember) and I can say I liked it. However I don't think it's sufficiently original/inovative to have a big shot at this category. I see it somewhere in the middle of the 5 nominees. And I refer here especially at the fact that "Deathly Hallows Part 2" comes after "Deathly Hallows Part 1" which comes after ... I don't recall after what .. but what's about VFX in it doesn't get way far different technically speaking from one part to the other. I have to admit anyway that from these year's entries here I guess this is the most varied. But this variation includes also a sufficient amount of motion capture, and we have seen motion capture before, and we have also another example for this among the five which gives class to "Harry Potter" specifically on this (and I guess it will matter a lot).
"Hugo" is an adaptation (a bit atypical for what usually Scorsese directs) after a semi-fictitious novel centered arounf Georges Melies, one of the most important names connected to the beginnings of the cinematography. More about the movie some other time, when I'll get to the Best Picture category, but as a short note Melies is probably the first important name linked to the usage of VFX in movies (as far as I know for the beginning of the XX-th century there wasn't anybody else to achieve something at a similar level). This would be an indirect reason, besides the 11 nominees that "Hugo" got this year, for which I see it as one of the two favorites on this section. On the other hand, I would give more credit to the movie for the art direction and cinematography + editing than for VFX in regard to the visual impression. As effects I don't see something really extraordinary. The most spectacular scene is probably the one involving a train crash, and the details about this show, at least for me, pretty conclusive the difference in complexity on the technical side in respect to at least one of the other nominees (if not more of them). Yes, well .. the VFX in "Hugo" are not reduced at just a single scene and I have to admit that I didn't see the move in 3D, but unlike "Avatar" where the 3D and the effects were going hand-in-hand, here the 3D however that would be, in my opinion is probably much more connected to the cinematography. And that's a completely different story (I have some fears that for the Academy might be not ... again remember "Avatar").
I had an entry about "Real Steel" in December so I won't get very long with it. It's clearly one of the two outsiders here, and also the title that probably has the least chances to nail an Oscar from the Academy (for me it would be the 4th though). Once again, lots of motion capture, and like I say for this we have this year's "the masterpiece" among the nominees. And it's not "Real Steel" ...
... It's "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" (long title .. I wonder how is the abbreviation .. guess it would still be long). The prequel for all the movies I guess, newer or older, from the "Planet of the Apes" franchise, which says to us "how all started", is indeed something superb considering the VFX. I personally have faith that the Academy won't be blind and see that objectively speaking, the Oscar should land here. It happened already for "Benjamin Button" a few years ago, and also for effects where the dominant and innovative part was related to the motion capture technique. What WETA from New Zealand managed to do (same team from LotR, Avatar & King Kong) is at least at the same level. Unfortunately, to say so, it's also the best part of the movie (the only nominee it has after all, and that's why I'm afraid that "Hugo" might grab this one), the rest being ok, but not something to remember. I've seen it last summer, and I don't want to get very long about it, especially since it's been a while and I don't remember it very well, but what I was assuming then proved to be true: if you see the three trailers released before, it's enough for not having anything essentially important more in the movie. Well .. except of the effects ;) ...
About the last (I really hope is the last ...) "Transformers" I don't have much to tell. They say (check the clip below) that they tried something different than the previous parts. Maybe .. I don't know .. what's certain is that's a difference also in the number of explosions, debris, etc, samd (obviously rising). "Dark of the Moon" bored me even more than "Transformers 2" ... and considering the script itself, even if it's not the right criteria, I would ban the movie from any type of nominee (they gave it 3 this year .... :|). To be fair, I have to admit that the VFX are probably the sole reason to watch this movie (well .. there is also Rosie around there, but still Megan was more ok .. a matter of taste anyway :P).
That's pretty much all for VFX ... I'll try to be back soon with an entry for sound ( one of my favorites ;) )
I'll start with the visual effects section, considering that for the moment is a bit more fresh in my head than the others. I actually had in mind to write a combined post including also the art direction, but I don't have enough time now for both of them. And besides that ... I think I'm gonna try to let a series of clips to "comment" more than I will (for sure it will bring more accurate info than I'm able to)
The first title on the nominee list (which is always alphabetical ordered) is "Alice in Wonderland". In a top for the Oscar favorites on this category, this movie probably would be the 2nd, meaning there are a few chances. The problem is that the effects, which are almost 90% of what you see on the screen, are on the same line with the specific Tim Burton "chaotic" style. Style, which I don't know how is perceived by other people, but on my case it manages to annoy me (well.. not every time, but in this case it does). I think that "Alice in Wonderland" was the perfect subject possible for this guy through the story/context nature, due to his directing style. And actually the result was pretty much as I expected. Shortly put - exaggeratedly dispersed out of the main storyline direction, which is quite lost among the whole mess. Maybe more on this in the next entry, because now I don't have enough time. Going back to the effects, even if, like I mentioned, these actually "carry" pretty much the whole movie, I think that in the same time also manage to make it a bit harder to watch. Maybe it's a matter of taste ... Anyway, to get to more objective info, the most parts of the film were shot in studio + computer generated. More on this in the next clip:
"Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1" .. left pretty much of the effects for Part 2. It looks quite weak on this side, not that any from the whole series was in any way exceptional. Not only this, but also as a movie is probably among the worst of all the HP's. It suffers from the same problem as the rest actually. I don't have anything against J.K. Rowling but you can see from a mile away that she didn't have a clue about what she'll write in the 7th volume when she wrote the first. And this won't be a problem if it would be for a series, like I don't know .. Agatha Christie's Poirot novels, let's say .. where besides the main character you don't have any other connection between the books. But in case of Potter, it's completely different, we have to deal with a soapy saga from the first episode to the last. And of course we get the same result as in any script where the author doesn't know what he/she'll write after the next two episodes = weak, flawed & not very credible. More exactly in each Potter we get all sorts of new elements in the action, and these in theory are supposed to be known/exist from the first part (or even before), but until the current movie were probably classified as top-secret material = nobody mentioned anything about them. In this Potter we have the almighty/allpowerful/alleverything "Deathly Hallows" falling exactly in the mentioned category. But ... this topic was about VFX, wasn't it ? Yep, only that about VFX I don't have much to say, and I doubt that the Academy will have too. There is an aerial chase in the beginning of the movie (which I didn't found on YouTube to give as sample), some animation that is quite good where is placed (but I don't know if that matters as effects) and pretty much all the rest is about throwing lightnings from the wands accompanied by a la Gollum goblins. And this can actually be seen also in the next clip:
"Hereafter" ... just let me write it one more time ... I hope it's clear now. It's not ? Then -> ... It's the last Eastwood movie and as a movie is ok. Shortly put, is a drama with some romance touch in the end, centered on the idea of "what happens after you move your residence in the underground". Or more precise, about the perception of the living on the subject between "". Again, as a movie is fine, especially if you're in the mood for a slow-paced drama (although for the "afterlife" subject I personally prefer something more like "The Jacket") but ... it doesn't have effects ! Well, ok ... it has ... one scene/sequence in the beginning that consists in a tsunami sweeping an entire beach and beyond that. And this is actually quite nicely done, being pretty "immersive" so to speak :) for the viewer. However, a nomination for that ... I'm pretty sure that even the VFX team is more than happy with what they already got and don't expect more. Unfortunately (or maybe not) I can't give a spoiler with the single important effect in the movie - the tsunami, because I didn't find any clip .. so I'll go for the trailer:
I've written about "Inception" last summer on my Ro version of the blog ( sorry, no translation :) ) so I'll be a bit shorter on this. Anyway, I'll talk more when I'll get to some other categories. So, strictly related to VFX, I'm pretty convinced that here is the Oscar destination. Besides the fact that it actually helps the viewer to get "more deep" into the story (unlike "Alice" for example where the chromatic might actually make you close your eyes sometimes), "Inception" is also quite innovative on the VFX. From all the 5 nominees I think it has by far the many original elements, not necessarily in technical terms, but visually not seen very often before. Probably the next clip will set this more clearly:
"Iron Man 2" doesn't bring much original stuff on the VFX. I think the first "Iron Man" was better on this chapter. And in the second we pretty much have what we had in the first in terms of effects + some new CGI. Again, about the movie I've already written last summer on my Ro blog ( and again, sorry no translation :) ). In a few words - you may want to watch the film only if you really really like super-hero movies and you don't mind the eternally overused good-hero-almost-dying-but-then-rises-and-kicks-ass tagline or the lack of credibility of some hilarious Russian scientist played by .. Mickey Rourke. I think this is more than enough to say .. oh, and a clip about the VFX:
Posts
