AMPAS: 15 Features Vying For VFX Oscar

COMMENTS (9)

• Just give it to Avatar…..

  Comment by effects — Friday December 11, 2009 @ 2:46pm PST  Reply to this post

  • I agree. there is no competition this year . Its Avatar’s year in all the technical categories except costumes

    Comment by Rob — Saturday December 12, 2009 @ 6:39am PST  Reply to this post

• Pretty effects, but if you keep it down to films that you can watch through completely you narrow the list to about 5 features.

  Comment by Lytton Strachey — Friday December 11, 2009 @ 2:58pm PST  Reply to this post

• Star Trek deserves the award ! It looked great.

  Comment by eb — Friday December 11, 2009 @ 10:29pm PST  Reply to this post

• Coraline is one of the worst movies of the year — with characters who are so annoying and a storyline with no emotional connection, why it is even in contention for anything or even a top nominee at at the annie’s is beyond me.

  Comment by james — Saturday December 12, 2009 @ 6:54am PST  Reply to this post

• I insist that the Academy has an excellent chance of screwing up these awards once more. Why?

  For example – remember INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996)? Tricia Ashford, the movie’s Digital Visual Effects Supervisor-Producer? The film won the Oscar… But Ashford was left out. The Academy rules cap the nominee limit to four people per film. The rules also prohibit producers – in any capacity – from being nominated for the award. INDEPENDENCE DAY producer Dean Devlin insisted the process was unjust. Twentieth Century Fox went even ran Oscar-pleading “For your consideration” advertisements for INDEPENDENCE DAY and listed Tricia Ashford as the project’s Digital Visual Effects Supervisor-Producer. The Academy still ignored her major role, and turned that year’s Visual Effects awards into another Academy embarrassment. Which they have Never corrected.

  The Academy only will give the statuette to only 4 people. Often many effect houses work on a single film (some have had up to a dozen). And they’re frequently left out of the Oscars (especially because they’re not a major house like ILM. Yes, the name DOES matter, and there IS a bias…) Though smaller houses often contribute to big-budget blockbusters, the Academy’s winner circle remains frustratingly elusive for many people working outside the big effects establishments. And sometimes just going with 4 names on a movie’s visual effects is a joke. Often it’s not enough & cuts out some of those responsible for important work on a film.

  As Rick Berman, producer of STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT has said,
  “There’s lots of injustices with this award because you’re forced to name names. It’s a terrible decision. Every year, there are bitter feelings about it.”

  It’s a matter of respect, of having an effects house recognized for their contribution and importance to the film they worked on. This is an ongoing slight by an Academy that doesn’t truly value what Visual Effects have done for industry, and art, of motion pictures. They refuse to change their bylaws in this category and continue as they have in the past. What does that say?

  Comment by Anonymous — Saturday December 12, 2009 @ 6:11pm PST  Reply to this post

• I insist that the Academy has an excellent chance of screwing up these awards once more. Why?

  For example – remember INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996)? Tricia Ashford, the movie’s Digital Visual Effects Supervisor-Producer? The film won the Oscar… But Ashford was left out. The Academy rules cap the nominee limit to four people per film. The rules also prohibit producers – in any capacity – from being nominated for the award. INDEPENDENCE DAY producer Dean Devlin insisted the process was unjust. Twentieth Century Fox went even ran Oscar-pleading “For your consideration” advertisements for INDEPENDENCE DAY and listed Tricia Ashford as the project’s Digital Visual Effects Supervisor-Producer. The Academy still ignored her major role, and turned that year’s Visual Effects awards into another Academy embarrassment. Which they have Never corrected.

  The Academy only will give the statuette to only 4 people. Often many effect houses work on a single film (some have had up to a dozen). And they’re frequently left out of the Oscars (especially because they’re not a major house like ILM. Yes, the name DOES matter, and there IS a bias…) Though smaller houses often contribute to big-budget blockbusters, the Academy’s winner circle remains frustratingly elusive for many people working outside the big effects establishments. And sometimes just going with 4 names on a movie’s visual effects is a joke. Often it’s not enough & cuts out some of those responsible for important work on a film.

  As Rick Berman, producer of STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT has said,
  “There’s lots of injustices with this award because you’re forced to name names. It’s a terrible decision. Every year, there are bitter feelings about it.”

  It’s a matter of respect, of having an effects house recognized for their contribution and importance to the film they worked on. This is an ongoing slight by an Academy that doesn’t truly value what Visual Effects have done for industry, and art, of motion pictures. They refuse to change their bylaws in this category and continue as they have in the past. What does that say?

  Comment by Larry Brooks — Saturday December 12, 2009 @ 6:18pm PST  Reply to this post

• shut it.

  District 9 FTW.

  Comment by blowjim — Sunday December 13, 2009 @ 1:51pm PST  Reply to this post

• The real injustice here is that they limit this category to only 3 films. Most other categories have four nominees. This 3 film limit may have made sense back in the day when there weren’t as many films with major fx work, but these days having only 3 in this category seems out of date and arbitrary.

  In response to the person above, I realize that it may seem wrong to limit the number of names nominated to only 4 when so many people work on this aspect of the production, but at least that limitation makes some sense to me (you have do draw the line somewhere, you can’t have a dozen people going up to pick up statues for one movie in one category).

  Expanding to four nominees here would do far more to recognize the great work of so many people. C’mon Academy, it’s overdue!

  And while we’re at it, the makeup category sometimes has as few as TWO nominees total. What the heck is that about? These aren’t the old days when only one or two movies a year featured ground breaking makeup and FX work.

  Comment by Manny — Sunday December 13, 2009 @ 5:37pm PST  Reply to this post