Like most others around here, I thought Transformers had the awards bagged. LIke most others, I was surprised that it didn't win.
However, at CG TAlk, there is a VFX thread, and I have to say... a couple posts in particular make me think more into the issue.

And this one:

I think some good points are made.

Thoughts?

 

Not news. Moved.

 

Agreed. See The Oscars, Emmys and all these awards shows are more about politics and kissing ass more than anything else.

Even though I've chosen not to see the TF movie or its sequel, I knew that it wasn't going to get The Oscar no matter what happened.

And Pirates already got an award from what I was told.

 

Oops. My bad.

 

No, Golden Compass did not deserve to win IMHO. The award is for achievement in special effects, and TGC didn't do anything that hadn't already been done. Transformers broke new ground, and actually made the CGI look real.
And Swarlock I'd have to say I disagree with you. Most awards shows are about kissing ass and who made the most money, but I find for the most part the Oscars really do go for quality; with a few minor infractions here and there (i.e Golden Compass winning VFX and Crash winning Best Picture)

Anyone else who is outraged by this and is on Facebook, join the group that I created. It's got some good and funny stuff linked to it. Plus a bunch of pissed off people lol!
http://stfx.facebook.com/group.php?gid=8614252324

 

I'd like to add another point as well. MrRid was saying that there was a lot of interaction between real and CG characters in TGC, more so than in TF. That may be true (although there was a LOT of human-robot interaction), but keep in mind that in TF the CG character were interacting with an entire real world. Almost EVERYTHING in Transformers was shot real-life. Most of the things the robots are interacting with were actually there! i.e. streets, buildings, cars, people, bridges, water, etc.
So while TGC may have had more CG character to real character interaction, Transformers has its CG character interacting with an entirely real physical world, which I can only assume is MUCH harder.

Side not: CAN YOU NOT SEE THE EMOTION IN OPTIMUS'S EYES?! How cool is that? I think it's cooler to make a robot look sad than it is to make a polar bear look sad.

 

Who are you agreeing with? That has nothing to do with anything in the OP.

 

Actually, I'm gonna have to disagree. TERMINATOR 2 IMO first made CG look real.

Also, what new ground did Transformers accomplish? As has been pointed out, we've been watching Cintron commercials long before the film came out. The only difference between Cintron and Transformers is how many polygons were involved.

Rendering hard metal surfaces in real environments have been around for quite some time now.

 

Personally, I thought Jurassic Park was the first film that made CGI look real, but looking back on it now, neither is correct. Both Terminator and Jurassic park used CGI to depict nonexistent things. If something doesn't exist in real life, it's a lot easier on the artists. Even with that caveat, they cheated by having the dinosaurs only appear slick with rain and giving T-1000 a translucent mirror finish. Believable matte textures weren't possible yet.

 

I would agree that Golden Compass deserved to win.

Main point being that in GC, slow motion close ups were much more prevalent than in TF1. It had to stand up to much greater scrutiny instead of hiding behind a shaky cam. I think that itself is my main reason why GC deserved to win.

It'd be like going to an art exhibit and being able to closely examine one art piece while in another art piece you had to stand 20 feet away in the middle of an earthquake.

 

My favorite part about this whole "controversy" is how when TF got nominated for 3 Oscar's, everyone was doing backflips, it was headline news on all the forums, etc. Then it lost - and rightly so imo - and suddenly the Oscar's are a sham, the Oscar's are rigged, the Oscar's have it out for Bay and/or summer action popcorn flicks, the Oscar's carry no credible weight, the Oscar's are biased, Transformers was snubbed, so on & so forth. It was textbook fanwankery whining at its worst ripe with more bias than what they accused the award show of supposedly having.

Few people stopped to factor in that at least TF even got nominated at all, nevermind 3 times in 3 separate categories. Add to that, the little rule of thumb that someone has to win and someone has to lose. It's the way the game is played. Just because "we" thought the movie was superior/better than the other nominees, it doesn't mean it made the grade... which it evidentially didn't. You also have to look at it objectively - what's harder to do, highly detailed close-up shots of CGI people & animals that have to move and function in believable ways to the audience (which they rarely ever do - see Spider-Man, Star Wars, LOTR, etc.) - or animating giant geometric shapes that were usually hdden behind explosions and shakey/tricky camera angles? For as much great work as ILM put into TF and for as real as they appeared, pulling off a life-like CGI polar bear - for example - is much more difficult to achieve than making a robot move or a car transform. Same thing with sound. Just because The Bourne Ultimatum wasn't overloaded with synthetic sound FX ala Star Wars, it didn't make the talent that went into creating those insanely cool and equally realistic fight & car chase scenes any less poignant.

So yeah, imo, Golden Compass & Ultimatum both deserved to win. Doesn't make TF any less of a movie and certainly doesn't make the importance of an Oscar nomination and/or win any less credible to the industry.

 

That's true, it was pretty amazing that TF got nominated for an Academy Award, but for Special Effects, I really thought it was more visually impressive.

 

Hmmm... let me think: No, No, and more, NO.

 

I read the book. Funny enough when I read it I thought it was pro-religion. Then I found out different.Silly me hunh?


I don't think it deserved to win.

 

Putting a fake object into a fake scene with fake lighting is easier than putting a highly intricate, fake object into a real setting with real lighting.

There's all the reflection, dirt and other factors that you have to apply onto a CGI object in a real setting. Just the slightest bit off and it will look fake, look at Jar Jar.

Transformers beat GC in that aspect IMO. It was photo-real. Why should the script taken into account for a VFX award anyway? yep, Transformers had a piss poor script, but that's the point isn't it? It was the visual wonder that kept people watching, that amazed people, that made people watch it again and again. GC had good CGI and a lot more of it, but IMO Transformers has the quality.

 

Bias towards TF aside, I still don't think GC deserved it. Hell, Pirates 3 deserved it more than GC did.

I thought the effects for GC were not all that special really. Transformers was robbed, plain and simple. Though I have NEVER taken the Oscars seriously...

 

Did Golden Compass deserve to win?

No.

 

lol @ the Facebook group, I joined. I see you put my pictures from the Oscars discussion thread to good use.