Oscar Beat: 15 Finalists Announced for Visual Effects Oscar

Posted by Neil Miller (neil@filmschoolrejects.com) on December 12, 2008

oscarbeat-08banner

It would appear that The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is all about announcements today. First came word that Hugh Jackman was being tapped to host the show, and now we find out the names of the 15 finalists for the Best Visual Effects award. They are as follows:

  • Australia
  • The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
  • Cloverfield
  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
  • The Dark Knight
  • The Day the Earth Stood Still
  • Hancock
  • Hellboy II: The Golden Army
  • The Incredible Hulk
  • Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
  • Iron Man
  • Journey to the Center of the Earth
  • The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor
  • Quantum of Solace
  • The Spiderwick Chronicles

In early January, the members of the Academy’s Visual Effects Branch Executive Committee, who voted the semifinalists, will narrow the list to seven.

On Thursday, January 15, all members of the Visual Effects Branch will be invited to view 15-minute excerpts from each of the seven shortlisted films. Following the screenings, the members will vote to nominate three films for final Oscar consideration.

The 81st Academy Awards nominations will be announced on Thursday, January 22, 2009, at 5:30 a.m. PT in the Academy’s Samuel Goldwyn Theater.

And now, a few thoughts from yours truly: I would knock one shitburger off the list right away, The Day the Earth Stood Still. The effects in that movie have no business being regarding alongside films such as Iron Man or Iron Man. That said, my pick this year would be The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. When you see it, you’ll know what I mean.

Which of these films would you pick for the Best Visual Effects Oscar? Also, are there any films that you feel were left off the list?


Read more articles by Neil Miller

« Previous Article | Next Article »

Related Topics:

Oscar Beat '08, Site Features, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Related Reading:

Your Ad Here

Comment Policy: No hate speech allowed. If you must argue, please debate intelligently. Comments containing selected keywords or outbound links will be put into moderation to help prevent spam. Film School Rejects reserves the right to delete comments and ban anyone who doesn't follow the rules. We also reserve the right to modify any curse words in your comments and make you look like an idiot. Thank You!

  • Can someone please define visual effects for me (at least in this context)? I've always considered it as being the effects that aren't done on computer (i.e, most of the Troll Market scene in Hellboy 2 would be visual effects since the vast majority of that was practical), and the CGI stuff was special effects... or am I getting something wrong here?

    I only ask because the movies listed above either have very heavy CGI effects used, or heavy use of practical effects. For instance, The Dark Knight was mostly practical (although I guess for stuff like Dent's makeup, there was some pretty flawless CGI being employed), but then The Incredible Hulk used quite a lot of CGI (and it wasn't exactly perfect either). And then we also have movies that only ever use CGI as a means to tell a story without it being a spectacle (Australia) and then movies that are almost yelling "look at these amazing computer effects!" (Journey to the Center of the Earth).

    Needless to say, I'm confused (and possibly wrong about a lot of stuff).
  • Homero
    I think we can knock Australia off that list pretty easily, some of the close-ups during the stampede were embarrassingly horrible.

    @Joshi
    I remember watching a behind-the-scenes documentary a couple years ago that defined special effects as the stuff you see on set, like a fire or a real explosion and whatnot, while visual effects were those added in post production, but using the term "Special Effects" to encompass both types when talking about the Oscar category.

    Of course, I may be wrong, but that's what I remember seeing.
  • Jette
    "City of Ember" had some lovely effects, I would certainly pick it over "Cloverfield" or "Prince Caspian."
  • Benjamin Button should win here. The various ages of Brad Pitt look fantastic and are realistic to the point that you forget that Brad Pitt isn't a four foot tall 85 year old manchild.
  • Special Effects are practical effects...Visual Effects are CGI or enhancements
  • Okay. Thanks. :)
  • I remember seeing similar in various DVD docs, but it never really cemented in my mind, which is why I got confused. ;) Thanks.
  • nick
    glad to see "Cloverfield" getting some support here. i know it won't win (hell, i'd be surprised if it made it to the final 5), but the amount of time it had to take to put the effects into footage shot on a handycam has got to be worth something.
  • Kudos on the detailed explanation, much thanks.

    But just to clarify, considering my initial confusion, the award basically goes for both, be it practical effects (miniatures, make up, prosthetics) or computer effects? Thus making a film like The Dark Knight more eligible (i.e, more eligible than I originally thought) since it employed both.
  • For a film to be nominated for this award, the effects artist must have created something not available for filming. For example, an entirely digital Empire State Building could not make a movie eligible, since one can easily film the building; on the other hand, a recreation of ancient Rome could, since it is impossible to film. However, movies are judged on the quality of all of their effects shots, not just one scene.

    According to the official Academy Award rules, the criteria are:

    "(a) consideration of the contribution the visual effects make to the overall production and

    (b) the artistry, skill and fidelity with which the visual illusions are achieved."
blog comments powered by Disqus