OVP: Best Visual Effects (2009)
The Nominees Were...
Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham, and Andrew R. Jones, Avatar
Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros, and Matt Aitken, District 9
Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh, and Burt Dalton, Star Trek
My Thoughts: Look at that nominated list: seriously, just look at it. The Visual Effects category is always a hit with audiences, possibly because it involves films that the bulk of the country actually sees (every one of these films cleared $100 million at the Box Office), but it's rare that a category has three nominees that truly deserve to be nominated AND come from decent/quality films.
The giant in the field is of course Avatar, a film that shattered any hope of another film winning the award and also broke so much ground it's difficult to complain about the film being the unstoppable titan of the field. I saw this film three times in theaters in 2009, and while the plot doesn't age quite as well as one would hope (there are direct and valid comparisons to Dances with Wolves that South Park correctly skewered), the movie is still a thrill ride and the effects are out-of-this-world. Literally every scene is crawling not just with CGI, but with "wow"-uttering CGI. I loved the destruction of the Hometree (catclysmic), the initial training of the dragons utterly awe-inspiring. This is a movie that manages to combine beautiful color, light, and magic in its visual effects, and still somehow never "overdoes" it. Cameron's VE team pushes the limits of effects while not sacrificing the story. We never get so caught off-guard by the effects that we forget the rest of the vision he's pulling together. The fact that no film between Avatar and Gravity had us clamoring for 3-D quite so much says something about how near perfect this film's visuals were.
District 9 has neither the technology nor the budget to rival Avatar when it comes to effects, but that doesn't mean that it isn't completely effective. We'll get to the plot and writing of District 9 later (one of the weirdest decisions the Oscars has made in the expanded Best Picture field, I must say), but the lower-grade visual effects work sublimely with the lower-grade nature of the aliens in the film. The aliens are not meant to impress the audience, and the visual effects are, for lack of a better term, "old school" Hollywood aliens, with the terrifying transformation of Wikus the key highlight. The low-level destruction of his body and the impending doom of his fate (he has no choice after he is initially infected from becoming one with the aliens) is aided by the key effects decisions. You can tell, with the budget as a hindrance, that Kaufman/Muyzers/Habros/Aitken is making every effects shot count, and it's both wildly effective and very story-aiding. This is exactly what the Academy should be looking for in this category; not just something ground-breaking, but something that assists the story.
Star Trek is probably the film that has the biggest problem with this balance, though its effects are still incredibly strong. I hate when people say that "in any other year, film X would have won," because that's so rarely true (most categories, but particularly this category, have a clear winner each year and most of the others are basically just nominees), but in most years Star Trek would have made a play for the trophy, if not won it outright. As these OVP's continue on, I remember things more in tracts than in fresh recalls (if necessary, I'll start re-viewing certain films, but I'm not quite there yet), and what I distinctly remember is a falling fight atop a ship, and being stunned at the almost complete use of CGI in the scene. The movie occasionally veers too far into the world of CGI, and you can tell the lines quite clearly between an actor and the universe behind him (I know it's far too expensive to do so, but occasionally it's worth it to see the actual set pieces on display in a similar fashion to the occasional reality used in Lord of the Rings if only to aid the majesty), but that's nit-picking in another very strong contender.
The giant in the field is of course Avatar, a film that shattered any hope of another film winning the award and also broke so much ground it's difficult to complain about the film being the unstoppable titan of the field. I saw this film three times in theaters in 2009, and while the plot doesn't age quite as well as one would hope (there are direct and valid comparisons to Dances with Wolves that South Park correctly skewered), the movie is still a thrill ride and the effects are out-of-this-world. Literally every scene is crawling not just with CGI, but with "wow"-uttering CGI. I loved the destruction of the Hometree (catclysmic), the initial training of the dragons utterly awe-inspiring. This is a movie that manages to combine beautiful color, light, and magic in its visual effects, and still somehow never "overdoes" it. Cameron's VE team pushes the limits of effects while not sacrificing the story. We never get so caught off-guard by the effects that we forget the rest of the vision he's pulling together. The fact that no film between Avatar and Gravity had us clamoring for 3-D quite so much says something about how near perfect this film's visuals were.
District 9 has neither the technology nor the budget to rival Avatar when it comes to effects, but that doesn't mean that it isn't completely effective. We'll get to the plot and writing of District 9 later (one of the weirdest decisions the Oscars has made in the expanded Best Picture field, I must say), but the lower-grade visual effects work sublimely with the lower-grade nature of the aliens in the film. The aliens are not meant to impress the audience, and the visual effects are, for lack of a better term, "old school" Hollywood aliens, with the terrifying transformation of Wikus the key highlight. The low-level destruction of his body and the impending doom of his fate (he has no choice after he is initially infected from becoming one with the aliens) is aided by the key effects decisions. You can tell, with the budget as a hindrance, that Kaufman/Muyzers/Habros/Aitken is making every effects shot count, and it's both wildly effective and very story-aiding. This is exactly what the Academy should be looking for in this category; not just something ground-breaking, but something that assists the story.
Star Trek is probably the film that has the biggest problem with this balance, though its effects are still incredibly strong. I hate when people say that "in any other year, film X would have won," because that's so rarely true (most categories, but particularly this category, have a clear winner each year and most of the others are basically just nominees), but in most years Star Trek would have made a play for the trophy, if not won it outright. As these OVP's continue on, I remember things more in tracts than in fresh recalls (if necessary, I'll start re-viewing certain films, but I'm not quite there yet), and what I distinctly remember is a falling fight atop a ship, and being stunned at the almost complete use of CGI in the scene. The movie occasionally veers too far into the world of CGI, and you can tell the lines quite clearly between an actor and the universe behind him (I know it's far too expensive to do so, but occasionally it's worth it to see the actual set pieces on display in a similar fashion to the occasional reality used in Lord of the Rings if only to aid the majesty), but that's nit-picking in another very strong contender.
Other Precursor Contenders: It's worth noting that this was the last year that this was a three-wide field. After this, the Oscars decided to go with a five-wide field, so there was clearly something in this list of films that just missed that Oscar wanted to take a shot at but wasn't given the opportunity. The Visual Effects Society divides its field into two categories: effects-driven films and films with supporting effects. The supporting effects team included eventual winner Sherlock Holmes, as well as Angels and Demons, Invictus (for what-the crowds?), The Box, and The Road. The real competition was in the effects-driven category, when Avatar (the victor), 2012, District 9, Star Trek, and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen all competed. BAFTA had gone five-wide earlier, so they had Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and The Hurt Locker joining the Oscar-nominated trio (Avatar of course won). Finally, we also have a shortlist for Visual Effects like we did for Makeup, so 2012, Harry Potter, Transformers, and Terminator Salvation all knew that they were just missing. My stomach is saying that if this were five-wide we'd have seen Transformers for sure (definitely the fourth place), and...who? 2012 was a much bigger deal at the time than we remember it, Terminator was a bit of a has-been, and Harry Potter had only cracked the V.E. field once before in a weak field. My gut says 2012 was fifth place, but I'm open to an argument in the comments.
Films I Would Have Nominated: This is a lineup with no faults-all three of these films deserved their nominations. I might argue just slightly that Half Blood Prince would be in third over my Oscar bronze, but this is a worthwhile list and one of the best Oscar pulled together in 2009. For the record, I would have put Half-Blood and Transformers in with the three nominees in a five-wide field...and it still would have been one of the best lineups they've put together in years.
Oscar's Choice: One could make the argument that Avatar was the frontrunner to a degree no other film has ever been in this category since its inception (at the very least since Titanic). It won, possibly with 80-90% of the vote. Gravity should duplicate that this year.
My Choice: With apologies to silver place District 9 and bronze Star Trek, both of which could have been strong winners in other years, Avatar reinvented the game and was a level of quality that changed the industry. It heartily deserved this win.
What'd you think of this Visual Effects lineup? Can anyone justify not voting for Avatar? Who would you include in a three-wide field? A five-wide field? And what was AMPAS's fifth place: Harry Potter, 2012, or Terminator? Share in the comments!
Also in 2009: Makeup, Previously in 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment