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.

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."

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).

@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.

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).

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).

@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.

@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.