Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

2010 Oscar Nominees


HighLanderZ

Recommended Posts

i do vfx for a living. the people at my studio have been talking about this ridiculousness since the nominations were announced. everyone that i know in the industry thinks the fact that 2012 didnt at least get a nomination is outrageous. 2012 was the most innovative vfx film of 2010 PERIOD. not even avatar had more innovations than 2012. yes avatar was a better movie than 2012, and so was d-9. but best vfx isnt about which movie is better, its about which movie had the best, most innovative vfx. there was absolutely no innovation in d-9. NONE. it was all stuff that we've seen before. we do more sophisticated stuff in commercials these days. For 2012, Digital Domain had to completely redesign their rigid body engine & Scanline was dealing with rendering 6 terabytes of data for the gigantic fluid sims! never before has there been destruction on such a massive level as in 2012. the sim work for that movie was absolutely mind boggling. it completely raised the bar on fx heavy films.

so to nominate d-9 over 2012?! it's ridiculous!

The criteria for Best Visual Effects is open & for me they have nothing to do w/ innovation. To me the criteria has to do w/ story telling & the effect it has on my movie going experience. For all the innovation noted in 2012, I was not always impressed by the visuals. And honestly, I wasn't always impressed by Avatar either. Pandora was well done, but the natives were not so consistent. Personally, I was far more impressed by District 9 b/c the Christopher Johnson character looked flesh & blood real to me. Plus, he is a totally animated character w/ depth of character & that advances a story. That's what I seek from my movie going experience & that's why my vote would go to District 9.

Link to post
Share on other sites
i do vfx for a living. the people at my studio have been talking about this ridiculousness since the nominations were announced. everyone that i know in the industry thinks the fact that 2012 didnt at least get a nomination is outrageous. 2012 was the most innovative vfx film of 2010 PERIOD. not even avatar had more innovations than 2012. yes avatar was a better movie than 2012, and so was d-9. but best vfx isnt about which movie is better, its about which movie had the best, most innovative vfx. there was absolutely no innovation in d-9. NONE. it was all stuff that we've seen before. we do more sophisticated stuff in commercials these days. For 2012, Digital Domain had to completely redesign their rigid body engine & Scanline was dealing with rendering 6 terabytes of data for the gigantic fluid sims! never before has there been destruction on such a massive level as in 2012. the sim work for that movie was absolutely mind boggling. it completely raised the bar on fx heavy films.

so to nominate d-9 over 2012?! it's ridiculous!

Grim-

You do VFX. Okay.

And you think the effects for 2012 represented more innovation than the Stereoscopic 3D than Avatar?

You are the only industry voice I know that goes that far.

Everything else you say is echoed throughout the industry, that 2012 got "jobbed" out of a nomination. But I don't know any other fx guru that has gone on record as saying 2012 represents a bigger breakthrough, and I have heard them RAVE about (2012) the movie's effects. (I don't pay to see crappy movies at the theater so I haven't seen it.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
i do vfx for a living. the people at my studio have been talking about this ridiculousness since the nominations were announced. everyone that i know in the industry thinks the fact that 2012 didnt at least get a nomination is outrageous. 2012 was the most innovative vfx film of 2010 PERIOD. not even avatar had more innovations than 2012. yes avatar was a better movie than 2012, and so was d-9. but best vfx isnt about which movie is better, its about which movie had the best, most innovative vfx. there was absolutely no innovation in d-9. NONE. it was all stuff that we've seen before. we do more sophisticated stuff in commercials these days. For 2012, Digital Domain had to completely redesign their rigid body engine & Scanline was dealing with rendering 6 terabytes of data for the gigantic fluid sims! never before has there been destruction on such a massive level as in 2012. the sim work for that movie was absolutely mind boggling. it completely raised the bar on fx heavy films.

so to nominate d-9 over 2012?! it's ridiculous!

I've only seen clips of 2012. Surely you've heard of the uncanny valley, yes? Well, the things that were happening on the screen were so implausible (to me, that is) that my brain processed it as fake immediately. There's this one particular part where chaos is happening on the streets, etc., and there's this screaming pedestrian that runs by the camera so quickly that he is perceived to be moving faster than the cars around him, the falling dump trucks, whatever...it looked like a joke he was moving so quickly. He almost seemed to be floating and/or made out of rubber he was flailing so wildly. But yes, I've not seen the movie, and it's quite possible that the effects look better on the big screen.

You do this stuff for a living, so I will honestly take your word for it that they were good effects. I always like effects more i they are integrated into the film in such a way that you don't notice them happening. Realism. Like District 9. Like The Road. There a lot of other recent examples of using effects subtly that I am forgetting right now. Anyways...

By the way: very cool job!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I may have to order The Hurt Locker on DirecTV PPV b/c the wait on Netflix appears too lengthy. I'd like to have another film to root for even though Avatar seems unstoppable. As I noted earlier, I thought Avatar was "good" but nothing more. At times, I found the dialogue & acting in Avatar painfully bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Grim-

You do VFX. Okay.

And you think the effects for 2012 represented more innovation than the Stereoscopic 3D than Avatar?

You are the only industry voice I know that goes that far.

Everything else you say is echoed throughout the industry, that 2012 got "jobbed" out of a nomination. But I don't know any other fx guru that has gone on record as saying 2012 represents a bigger breakthrough, and I have heard them RAVE about (2012) the movie's effects. (I don't pay to see crappy movies at the theater so I haven't seen it.)

stereoscopic 3d has been around for years and years and years and... well you get the picture. and the way fx packages are setup these days... stereo is very easy to do. sometimes kinda tedious, but very easy nonetheless. stereoscopic techniques have been around a long time there's nothing really that innovative about them in avatar. however, if avatar was to win best vfx this year i wouldn't be mad. it was a beautiful movie, and i think just the fact that the environments were completely cg and as lush and unique as they were. well i think that's pretty damn impressive.

beyond that... really, if you haven't seen more than a 30 second clip of 2012, the movie is a lot more impressive in feature length format. so please don't judge it based off a commercial, that's just not fair.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The criteria for Best Visual Effects is open & for me they have nothing to do w/ innovation. To me the criteria has to do w/ story telling & the effect it has on my movie going experience. For all the innovation noted in 2012, I was not always impressed by the visuals. And honestly, I wasn't always impressed by Avatar either. Pandora was well done, but the natives were not so consistent. Personally, I was far more impressed by District 9 b/c the Christopher Johnson character looked flesh & blood real to me. Plus, he is a totally animated character w/ depth of character & that advances a story. That's what I seek from my movie going experience & that's why my vote would go to District 9.

well of course, when you've done something a million times before, you should probably do it well when you do it the million and first time.... of course by that time everyone's already seen it a million times...

Link to post
Share on other sites
well of course, when you've done something a million times before, you should probably do it well when you do it the million and first time.... of course by that time everyone's already seen it a million times...

That's what made District 9 stand above the rest to me; I had not seen a CGI character I could totally buy into since LOTR. It would be nice if something could be done well when done the millionth & first time. My problem w/ CGI is I usually find it poorly done esp. when it comes to any kind of humanoid character. And that brings up the point that after you create the visuals, where is the character within?

Anyway, I would just like to make clear that this is all just subjective, so I am in no way saying you're wrong & I'm right. I'm only pointing out that there are also different perspectives & different ways to appreciate visual effects. I would not have been up in arms if 2012 got a nomination & I don't know why it's only limited to 3 films. I for one was actually angered when The Chronicles of Narnia got a Best Visuals nomination. To me, that CGI was horrid as were the performances.

Link to post
Share on other sites
beyond that... really, if you haven't seen more than a 30 second clip of 2012, the movie is a lot more impressive in feature length format. so please don't judge it based off a commercial, that's just not fair.

I hope to god we're only talking effects at this point, and not actual quality of the film...if not, well...heh heh. Because outside the effects-o-gasms, you gotta admit it's a pretty terrible movie when it comes to plot, acting, and, well...everything else...........right? I mean, we're talking about a film that was lambasted pretty strongly by critics upon its release.

Also...I hope we're not falling into the trap that Oscar for special effects = best CGI. There ARE "effects" outside of CGI, of course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope to god we're only talking effects at this point, and not actual quality of the film...if not, well...heh heh. Because outside the effects-o-gasms, you gotta admit it's a pretty terrible movie when it comes to plot, acting, and, well...everything else...........right? I mean, we're talking about a film that was lambasted pretty strongly by critics upon its release.

Also...I hope we're not falling into the trap that Oscar for special effects = best CGI. There ARE "effects" outside of CGI, of course.

yes, we're only talking fx. 2012 sucked as a whole.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Best Picture

"Avatar" James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers

"The Blind Side" Nominees to be determined

"District 9" Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham, Producers

"An Education" Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey, Producers

"The Hurt Locker" Nominees to be determined

"Inglourious Basterds" Lawrence Bender, Producer

"Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire" Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness, Producers

"A Serious Man" Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, Producers

"Up" Jonas Rivera, Producer

"Up in the Air" Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman, Producers

Just saw The Hurt Locker & wow, very impressive. It's really a character analysis, so it's not a traditional story w/ a beginning, middle, & end. I didn't realize the angle of the character analysis beforehand (

"war is a drug"

) so I was pleasantly surprised. Ah, I still want to see The Blind Side, Up in the Air, as well as A Serious Man.

Even though Avatar is likely to win best picture due to the strength of its box office, here's how I'd rate it among the 5 films I've seen so far.

District 9 - 9.5/10

Inglourious Basterds - 9/10

The Hurt Locker - 9/10

Up - 8/10

Avatar - 6/10

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...

I will under no circumstance watch Hurt Locker. My friend who I went to HS with is the guy who works as the VA spokesman. He along with many many oher vets I have spoken to said it was so far from the truth it was ridiculous. It was an insult to the American Army for that film to win any awards.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I will under no circumstance watch Hurt Locker. My friend who I went to HS with is the guy who works as the VA spokesman. He along with many many oher vets I have spoken to said it was so far from the truth it was ridiculous. It was an insult to the American Army for that film to win any awards.

As w/ all things in life, it seems to be a matter of opinion. I've seen vets be both critical of & praise The Hurt Locker. The film is a character analysis of the main character & it succeeds in getting into his warped head. The truth the film is really seeking concerns the main character's psychology. The Hurt Locker was definitely deserving of Best Picture, as it's among the finest films produced in quite a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know why Sandra Bullock beat Meryl Streep for best actress?

Because Julia Roberts wasn't nominated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Root Admin
You know why Sandra Bullock beat Meryl Streep for best actress?

Because Julia Roberts wasn't nominated.

Meh. Streep gets robbed pretty much every year. It's understood that she's the greatest actress that's every lived. Bullock will most likely never be there again and she understood it. She handled the entire affair (from nomination to win) with class and dignity. She had the best speech of the night and was great at the Razzies as well. I don't get all the Bullock hate, she's outstanding for what she does and is a pretty cool chick. Meryl's fun as well. Steve Martin's line about her being the biggest loser was hilarious....

Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't get all the Bullock hate, she's outstanding for what she does and is a pretty cool chick. Meryl's fun as well. Steve Martin's line about her being the biggest loser was hilarious....

Oh, come on Patrick- A "haters" reference?

I expect better out of you. B)

Actually, I like Bullock a lot. A lot.

But, no, she did not deserve to win, period. Hers wasn't the best performance in the field. And thinking an actress is appealing and competent is not enough to justify screwing Meryl Streep once again, this time for a brilliantly realized performance of a very accessible real life icon.

Bullock essayed a fairly "by the numbers" role similar to Roberts "Erin Brockovich" (hence the comparison) and besides being cliched "The Blind Side" was a shamefully (or shamelessly) embellished "True Story". It was really a misrepresentation of the facts, as good a story as Michael Oher's triumph has actually been.

The Academy Awards should represent the best, or failing that -since many of the best work rarely gets recognized by even a nomination- the best of the talent on the ballot.

BTW- I boycotted the awards because I knew Bullock would win. I have no idea how engaging Bullock was. But considering her winning personality, one many times more sincere in feel than the similarly cast Julia Roberts, I have no doubt she was bright and ebullient- though I wish she'd put on a few pounds.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Root Admin
Oh, come on Patrick- A "haters" reference?

I expect better out of you. B)

Actually, I like Bullock a lot. A lot.

But, no, she did not deserve to win, period. Hers wasn't the best performance in the field. And thinking an actress is appealing and competent is not enough to justify screwing Meryl Streep once again, this time for a brilliantly realized performance of a very accessible real life icon.

Bullock essayed a fairly "by the numbers" role similar to Roberts "Erin Brockovich" (hence the comparison) and besides being cliched "The Blind Side" was a shamefully (or shamelessly) embellished "True Story". It was really a misrepresentation of the facts, as good a story as Michael Oher's triumph has actually been.

The Academy Awards should represent the best, or failing that -since many of the best work rarely gets recognized by even a nomination- the best of the talent on the ballot.

BTW- I boycotted the awards because I knew Bullock would win. I have no idea how engaging Bullock was. But considering her winning personality, one many times more sincere in feel than the similarly cast Julia Roberts, I have no doubt she was bright and ebullient- though I wish she'd put on a few pounds.

I thought that would get a reaction! :) Meryl Streep is acting treasure, even if it's not cool to like her if you're young. I actually didn't like her as much in this role than say "Doubt", last year's performance. I also agree that overlooking someone because their outstanding work has become commonplace isn't a great ideal as well. However, this is the Oscars. It's all about politics and timing as much as artistic contribution. Maybe I'm a softie but I thought Bullock was very good in "The Blind Side". Is it a bit schlocky and sweet? Perhaps, but I'm not going to penalize her her performance for the story's misgivings.

And the movie was no more embellished than say, "Walk the Line" or "Frost/Nixon" from a historical context. I think Streep being passed over for her roles in "One True Thing" for Paltrow (although I would have given it to Blanchett) or "Out of Africa" or "Cry in the Dark" (great year for female performances) were bigger mistakes. It was a relatively weak year for movies overall and for women's roles. Only at the Oscars could "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan" or Al Pacino beat Denzel for "Malcolm X". Hater comment was directed specifically at you, although you did boycott the thing :lol: , but more at the general criticism that had been thrown her way in the days leading up to the thing. Besides she's still looks good in a girl next door kind of way.

I read a great quote yesterday. Mo'nique owns as many Oscars as Scorcese or Pacino. Gotta laugh it off....

Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought that would get a reaction! B) Meryl Streep is acting treasure, even if it's not cool to like her if you're young. I actually didn't like her as much in this role than say "Doubt", last year's performance. I also agree that overlooking someone because their outstanding work has become commonplace isn't a great ideal as well. However, this is the Oscars. It's all about politics and timing as much as artistic contribution. Maybe I'm a softie but I thought Bullock was very good in "The Blind Side". Is it a bit schlocky and sweet? Perhaps, but I'm not going to penalize her her performance for the story's misgivings.

And the movie was no more embellished than say, "Walk the Line" or "Frost/Nixon" from a historical context. I think Streep being passed over for her roles in "One True Thing" for Paltrow (although I would have given it to Blanchett) or "Out of Africa" or "Cry in the Dark" (great year for female performances) were bigger mistakes. It was a relatively weak year for movies overall and for women's roles. Only at the Oscars could "Shakespeare in Love" beat "Saving Private Ryan" or Al Pacino beat Denzel for "Malcolm X". Hater comment was directed specifically at you, although you did boycott the thing :lol: , but more at the general criticism that had been thrown her way in the days leading up to the thing. Besides she's still looks good in a girl next door kind of way.

I read a great quote yesterday. Mo'nique owns as many Oscars as Scorcese or Pacino. Gotta laugh it off....

I agree, Sister Aloysius was a brilliant creation, a parochial school nightmare brought to life. But it's apples and oranges as it relates to Streep essaying Julia Child:

One is the inhabiting of a unique original character, the other the re-creation of a well-known icon, replete with vocal inflections, facial expressions and physical mannerisms and movement, similar to Sean Penn's Oscar winning portrayal of Harvey Milk.

And when it comes to true life icons, Julia Child is a unique (there's that word again) personage to invoke as not only do we have ready access to scores of footage of her for comparison's sake, but her bigger than life persona has been parodied to near death for DECADES. I still remember laughing my a** of at Dan Ackroyd's Pythonesque incarnation back in the 70's! (Yes- old again.) There are so many ways in which Streep could have gone wrong. She didn't.

Bullock was nice. And everybody loves her and there's nothing funny about her at all. But it's like when Art Carney won for "Harry and Tonto". His performance was quality, it was great to see him win...but he beat Dustin Hoffman in "Lenny", Jack Nicholson in "Chinatown" and Al Pacino in "Godfather II" (and Albert Finney in "Murder on the Orient Express"). So...Really?

Yes, the Oscars are a sham. But that doesn't make it any more acceptable, does it?

I still can't get over that Denzel won best Supporting Actor for "Glory". Really? Did anyone making the nominations actually SEE that movie? Because Denzel's character was one of TWO LEADS (the other being Matthew Broderick). (Hopefully this wasn't a case of the film's producers presenting him to voters as a Supporting player because as so often is the case they thought it represented "his best chance to win". If so shame on those idiots.) Of all the Best Lead/Supporting mis-classifications there have been over the years that one is still the worst to me. And he deserved to win Best Actor, period. Towering performance.

OH- And yes, you are a softie. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...