OVP: Best Visual Effects (2016)
The Nominees Were...
Craig Hammack, Jason Snell, Jason Billington, & Burt Dalton, Deepwater Horizon
Stephane Ceretti, Richard Bluff, Vincent Cirelli, & Paul Corbould, Doctor Strange
Robert Legato, Adam Valdez, Andrew R. Jones, & Dan Lemmon, The Jungle Book
Steve Emerson, Oliver Jones, Brian McLean, & Brad Schiff, Kubo and the Two Strings
John Knoll, Mohen Leo, Hal Hickel, & Neil Corbould, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
Stephane Ceretti, Richard Bluff, Vincent Cirelli, & Paul Corbould, Doctor Strange
Robert Legato, Adam Valdez, Andrew R. Jones, & Dan Lemmon, The Jungle Book
Steve Emerson, Oliver Jones, Brian McLean, & Brad Schiff, Kubo and the Two Strings
John Knoll, Mohen Leo, Hal Hickel, & Neil Corbould, Rogue One: A Star Wars Story
My Thoughts: For a while there, this category was kind of the land of the "what's the next great titan?" in terms of visual effects. From Titanic to The Two Towers to Pirates of the Caribbean 2 to Avatar to Gravity, we saw one gigantic triumph after the other. What is lost in that is that there were occasionally years where the technology that was being highlighted wasn't nearly as impressive as even the year before's field, much less a standout for the decade. Occasionally this category recalls the years where not every film was an effects-driven magnet, and 2016 was one of those years. Skipping arguably the best film of the year for effects (we'll get there in a second), they settled for a hodgepodge of categories with mixed results.
We're going to start out with Rogue One, because I wanted to get it out of the way. This film from a purely technical standpoint is probably the one that will be best-remembered of these five, simply for its use of recreating the facial technology of actor Peter Cushing, but it's also very much in the "uncanny valley" and not realistic. You watch the film and Cushing is still a little bit off-he never looks entirely like the other figures (no technology has really gotten there when it comes to recreating the youth of a human face, though arguably Samuel L. Jackson in Captain Marvel at least was a step up from this). There is also the moral dilemma of Cushing's being involved at all (he was not alive at the time of filming, and therefore unlike Carrie Fisher who was, he couldn't consent to what he is being made to say-and-do onscreen), it's just not convincing at all and pulls you out of the picture. The water planet scenes are extraordinary, but when your visual effects make the film worse & less believable, I don't see how you can come back from that with other intriguing work.
We're also going to get the other major visual effects film that I hated & everyone else left in awe of out-of-the-way: I was not impressed by the work in The Jungle Book. At all. The lighting was a distraction (the film was unnaturally lit, something you'd never confuse an actual film shot in nature from being), and the effects were covered up by the darkness. There are moments, like Rogue One, where it's undeniable that we're seeing something spectacular (particularly the scene with King Louie), but most of the time you're struck by Neel Sethi's Mowgli making the other characters around him seem fake and not of the same organic material. Essentially it becomes an animated movie, and while that'd be fine (animation frequently has the biggest steps in technology), it's animated and it looks jarring to the eye when you compare Sethi with any of the animal creations. This isn't Space Jam where you're supposed to notice the difference or even Gollum where you know he's a different creature-they're supposed to be real flesh-and-blood panthers, snakes, & bears...and they never really look it. Fifteen years ago, this would have been impressed from a technical standpoint even if it wasn't a perfect execution, but in 2016, we should expect better.
That leaves us with the remaining three films, and arguably the three films that were the also-rans for me to pick my winner from. Kubo and the Two Strings is definitely most unusual of these nominations, as it's the first stop-motion film in 23 years to be nominated for Visual Effects (the last being Nightmare Before Christmas), and it's hard not to see why. The combination of the stop-motion figures against a gorgeous matte painted background makes this Laika's most impressive film visually, and the transition between CGI & actual figures is seamless. This is a bit more polished than past Laika pictures, and with that some of the quirky magic disappears, but the origami-inspired animation is extraordinary, and if Oscar was going to break its animation streak, this feels like a good place to do it.
While one could argue Kubo is the film most reliant on physical effects (rather than CGI) because of all of the miniatures in the picture, Deepwater Horizon would surely be the one with the most traditional practical effects. The movie's best VFX moment (Gina Rodriguez's jump to Mark Wahlberg on a burning rig) is harrowing, and the stuff of great action adventure, but it's also the only really compelling stunt in the movie, as most of the others are frequently repetitive and oftentimes are blending really poorly with the actual CGI (the underwater shots are not very convincing). This feels more a nod to practical effects in general (in a world where CGI dominates this category), and perhaps a little bit to this being a year without a lot of competition.
Speaking of CGI, we have Marvel's entry into this race with Doctor Strange. After initial resistance, comic book films are finding themselves a frequent source of nominations in this category, and it's the attention to something as visually sumptuous as Doctor Strange might have broken through even when they were less enamored by the "Reign of Superheroes." The distinctive color palette is expressive and exquisite, and the car sequences are actually pretty impressive for such a film. The movie over-relies on CGI elements, oftentimes at the expense of some of its better stunt work (particularly in the final fight scene), but it's still a solid installment and a nomination that no one could be ashamed of here. If Marvel is going to get a relatively simple gimme nomination, it's still one of the better ones from 2016.
We're going to start out with Rogue One, because I wanted to get it out of the way. This film from a purely technical standpoint is probably the one that will be best-remembered of these five, simply for its use of recreating the facial technology of actor Peter Cushing, but it's also very much in the "uncanny valley" and not realistic. You watch the film and Cushing is still a little bit off-he never looks entirely like the other figures (no technology has really gotten there when it comes to recreating the youth of a human face, though arguably Samuel L. Jackson in Captain Marvel at least was a step up from this). There is also the moral dilemma of Cushing's being involved at all (he was not alive at the time of filming, and therefore unlike Carrie Fisher who was, he couldn't consent to what he is being made to say-and-do onscreen), it's just not convincing at all and pulls you out of the picture. The water planet scenes are extraordinary, but when your visual effects make the film worse & less believable, I don't see how you can come back from that with other intriguing work.
We're also going to get the other major visual effects film that I hated & everyone else left in awe of out-of-the-way: I was not impressed by the work in The Jungle Book. At all. The lighting was a distraction (the film was unnaturally lit, something you'd never confuse an actual film shot in nature from being), and the effects were covered up by the darkness. There are moments, like Rogue One, where it's undeniable that we're seeing something spectacular (particularly the scene with King Louie), but most of the time you're struck by Neel Sethi's Mowgli making the other characters around him seem fake and not of the same organic material. Essentially it becomes an animated movie, and while that'd be fine (animation frequently has the biggest steps in technology), it's animated and it looks jarring to the eye when you compare Sethi with any of the animal creations. This isn't Space Jam where you're supposed to notice the difference or even Gollum where you know he's a different creature-they're supposed to be real flesh-and-blood panthers, snakes, & bears...and they never really look it. Fifteen years ago, this would have been impressed from a technical standpoint even if it wasn't a perfect execution, but in 2016, we should expect better.
That leaves us with the remaining three films, and arguably the three films that were the also-rans for me to pick my winner from. Kubo and the Two Strings is definitely most unusual of these nominations, as it's the first stop-motion film in 23 years to be nominated for Visual Effects (the last being Nightmare Before Christmas), and it's hard not to see why. The combination of the stop-motion figures against a gorgeous matte painted background makes this Laika's most impressive film visually, and the transition between CGI & actual figures is seamless. This is a bit more polished than past Laika pictures, and with that some of the quirky magic disappears, but the origami-inspired animation is extraordinary, and if Oscar was going to break its animation streak, this feels like a good place to do it.
While one could argue Kubo is the film most reliant on physical effects (rather than CGI) because of all of the miniatures in the picture, Deepwater Horizon would surely be the one with the most traditional practical effects. The movie's best VFX moment (Gina Rodriguez's jump to Mark Wahlberg on a burning rig) is harrowing, and the stuff of great action adventure, but it's also the only really compelling stunt in the movie, as most of the others are frequently repetitive and oftentimes are blending really poorly with the actual CGI (the underwater shots are not very convincing). This feels more a nod to practical effects in general (in a world where CGI dominates this category), and perhaps a little bit to this being a year without a lot of competition.
Speaking of CGI, we have Marvel's entry into this race with Doctor Strange. After initial resistance, comic book films are finding themselves a frequent source of nominations in this category, and it's the attention to something as visually sumptuous as Doctor Strange might have broken through even when they were less enamored by the "Reign of Superheroes." The distinctive color palette is expressive and exquisite, and the car sequences are actually pretty impressive for such a film. The movie over-relies on CGI elements, oftentimes at the expense of some of its better stunt work (particularly in the final fight scene), but it's still a solid installment and a nomination that no one could be ashamed of here. If Marvel is going to get a relatively simple gimme nomination, it's still one of the better ones from 2016.
Other Precursor Contenders: The Visual Effects Society splits its nominations between effects-driven films (the ones that actually get nominated at the Oscars) and the ones with supporting effects (which only rarely get cited with AMPAS, but are usually a more interesting lineup). The effects-driven film nominations went with the victorious Jungle Book, besting Doctor Strange, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Rogue One, and Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children, while the supporting effects gave its trophy to Deepwater Horizon over Allied, Jason Bourne, Silence, and Sully. The BAFTA Awards also went with Jungle Book, here in a bid over Doctor Strange, Fantastic Beasts, Arrival, and Rogue One. And as Visual Effects is one of the only categories to have a bakeoff of sorts, we do know that one of the following five films was certainly the sixth place finisher: Captain America: Civl War, Passengers, Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, Arrival, and The BFG. I'd assume based on its overall performance with Oscar that Arrival was the clear sixth place (and the biggest threat to Jungle Book's ultimate victory), but looking at the precursors, it's possible that Fantastic Beasts may have been closer.
Films I Would Have Nominated: I'd honestly upend most of this category as (if you couldn't already tell) I wasn't a big fan of this lineup. I'd throw in Arrival for sure (it'd be my winner of the bunch as it used its effects to the best, well, effect), and actually keep Passengers for that floating water scene alone. For the fifth slot, I'd go back-and-forth between Fantastic Beasts and A Monster Calls, but honestly I think I'd favor the latter, whose effects felt more natural to its world (even if they didn't have the same budget), more singular (they fit the movie like a glove), and more needed to the ultimate plot.
Oscar’s Choice: Easy victory for Jungle Book, as Rogue One was probably the only movie that got close.
My Choice: Kubo, and by quite a bit-it's the most organic, original, and well-constructed set of effects (that actually aid the movie). Follow that with Doctor Strange, Deepwater Horizon, The Jungle Book, and Rogue One.
And those are my thoughts-what are yours? Are you with the consensus that Jungle Book should have won this in a walk, or you with me on the sidelines shouting for Kubo? Am I alone in thinking that Rogue One's effectives aren't that convincing and feel a bit of a moral grey area? And how did Arrival miss this lineup? Share below!
No comments:
Post a Comment