Hugo did too, but you're missing the point. My point was, he said the comittee didn't like RotPotA because they were old. The original PotA came out in 1968, so it wasn't like the movies were this new-fangled thing old farts just "don't get".
Hugo was a WAY better movie, but it didn't have better effects. Assuming that's what the category for its winning was. If that category was for the best use of 3D, then yeah, Hugo had better 3D. Money doesn't equal quality, but the category wasn't on best quality of film, it was special effects, and the quality of DOTM's effects were tops last year, regardless of your subtle rage against cheat-transformations. I'm sure the polar bear used some cheat tactics to save on fur-rendering time.
Uh, actually, "Hugo" was a spectacular movie, and certainly deserved its Oscar. So, check yo' shit son.
It didn't deserve the visual effects Oscar though, as compared to other movies like DOTM, PoTA, Real Steel and maybe even Harry Potter
Congrats, Hugo team! You say that as if Optimus' head pieces had the Academy voters vomiting up their lunches at the sight of such an atrocity... Or that it even mattered. No, the polar bears had fur. And claws. And organic eyes. And basically not much else that hadn't already been attempted in the visual effects world. Shape-shifting cars-to-robots on the other hand... The visual effects academy award criteria doesn't care if the transformations "cheat". They don't care if "OMG! That's not how Bonecrusher is supposed to transform! Optimus' head panels move from his shoulders (not "crawling up his back" as you so hyperbolically put it) to form his helmet!? Outrageous!" They don't care if the transformation cheat. They don't care if Andy Serkis looked silly on set during the mo-cap performances. They don't care if Iorek was represented by a balloon or a guy on stilts in the filming of TGC. They don't care if Davy Jones' tentacles don't look like a specific species of sea creature. As long as the visual effects look photorealistic and took a large amount of talent and skill to accomplish and offer something to the story. That's what counts. Plus, every visual effects film "cheats" to a degree. Whether it's reused models, hollow models, etc., they always do something to help make the process go faster. P.S. I'm not knocking the loads of work that went into The Golden Compass.
Award shows aren't about who had the big box office because the path to a huge box office is often by playing it safe and always going for the lowest common denominator. An awards show like the Oscars rather go for the risk taker who lost box office on a film that wasn't for everyone over someone who was bland and generic enough to appeal to everyone. It's why restaurant awards go to some place you've never heard of instead of going to McDonalds or Subway.
yeah, the animal photorealism sfx has already been so overused. i think it was already polished enough when the first Chronicles of Narnia came out. i really don't know what was so ground-breaking about it. but when i first saw Barricade's transformation, i was really impressed. first thing that it had been done in cinema, and done se effectively and the special effect was almost perfect... and i did not even notice these "cheating" when first i saw it, although on further review later and when i did slow-mo i realized yeah there probably was some cheating.. but that's not what came to my mind first. i thought those transformation special effects were so convincing and real.
This post is hilarious, because you don't know how visual effects are judged. And also because I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Except that the visual effects in "Hugo" were done a lot differently. I honestly think it won the Oscar for how some of the things were pulled off. For example, recreating a film from 1902 in a believable fashion. Or the scene during his dream where the train crashes out of the building, recreating that famous photograph. I'm fairly certain that was done partially with a model train, which makes it all the more awesome, as a nod to visual effects of the olden days. You have to remember, that "visual effects" doesn't just mean "CGI". Yeah, DotM and the others you listed have amazing special effects, and no one is going to contest that. But "Hugo" was definitely deserving of the award.
No, it wasn’t. And that’s not opinion-based; it objectively did not deserve the award. Apes was robbed, pure and simple, because of the political corruption of the Academy. No other reason. Ever since what they did with the LOTR films, the Academy has been proven as a joke. Giving 11 Awards to ROTK simply because they knew they had to or else, even though every man and his dog knows that Peter Jackson should have won Best Director for FOTR, as well as FOTR winning Best Film, but the Academy had already made up their minds prior that Ron Howard was going to win Best Director for 2001, as well as Beautiful Mind winning Best Film. I repeat: the Academy is a farce. Also, I was watching a film programme broadcast in England on BBC1 called Film 2012. They clearly stated that the majority of the top voters of the Academy are over sixty years of age. Make of that what you will.
Actually, it is pretty widely accepted that they delayed giving Best Director/Picture to LOTR until the final film is because they wanted to acknowledge the completed trilogy, not a single film. It was acknowledgement of all the hard work and dedication everyone put into to make a fantastic film that had to (for time constraints) be divided into three films. The award for ROTK was for the entire trilogy, pure and simple.
I fail to see how that's objective and still not an opinion. It's your opinion that those men over 60 are somehow incapable of enjoying a film's effects simply because they're old. By that logic, Octavia Spencer wouldn't have won for Best Supporting Actress because she would've been "one of those damn negro women", since you know, all old people hate blacks and such because they grew up in the days of the Civil Rights Movement.
1991 might be a better example. It was considered a shoe in that the Disney film Beauty and the Beast would break the Oscar mold by an animated film winning Best Picture. Bugsy, JFK, and The Prince of Tides weren't strong films. Instead the Best Picture Oscar went to The Silence of the Lambs because old Hollywood feared that animated films would somehow replace the traditional hierarchy of live actors in live action films being the apex of film making. To keep off the threat of animated films the Oscars came up with the category of Best Full Length Animated Film so that animation would not threaten the category of Best Picture. It wouldn't be until 2009 when the Best Picture nominations were expanded to pander the Oscars to more than the Oscar bait crowd that an animated film would get another shot at Best Picture.
When I said objectively, I was referring to Hugo not deserving the award, not the age of the panellists. I do think the age of the panellists is telling, though, but that is my own opinion. I should have made that more clear. But that’s not the way it’s supposed to work. Each film should be viewed as an individual. And if that is the case (which is something that I have thought for a while, as others obviously have as well) then it just goes to prove further how fixed the Academy is and that nearly all the big awards are pre-ordained. Jackson’s award, to me, felt more like a “Special Achievement” award rather than a true Best Director acknowledgment. Someone earlier in the thread likened the Academy Awards to the Eurovision Song Contest. Anyone who lives in Europe knows how biased and political that show really is. As a result of all the years the Eurovision Song Contest is now pretty much viewed as a joke, even by the presenter they pick each year. The Oscars is exactly the same, but no one seems to have the guts to say so. I suppose no one wants to lose their job, which is fair enough.
Say's who? We may not like the way they do things, but this is the Academy's award show and they can do things as they wish. The Oscars don't really mean any more than any other award, they are just the oldest/most televised.
I would be very surprised if TF would get at least one Oscar!!!!!............ I watched the broadcast from 4.30 to 7.00 AM (we have difference in 11 hours) and I'm very happy to see a couple of moments from DOTM!!! I was waiting for them the most! I so rarely watch the Film! And it's a great historical moment: in this sequences Decepticons weren't! (remember 2008) Only Autobots! Yeeees!!!!! And in a whole a visual effects award was firstly presented with more importance, then before. The Hollywood finally recognized, that it's a very big part of making film! I think if TF will receive an Oscar someday, the world just turn upside down ))
If you're going to use an example of one film inexplicably beating another, I'm sure there's a better example than that... "The Silence of the Lambs" swept the 5 major awards, I think only the third film to do so? A much better example would be the Saving Private Ryan/Shakespeare in Love debacle.
