or Connect
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › The Asshole & The Ecstasy: 2012 ACADEMY AWARDS
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Asshole & The Ecstasy: 2012 ACADEMY AWARDS - Page 3

post #101 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post


But what did this Transformers do effects-wise that was all that different from the first two films?  Transformers was evolutionary; Apes was revolutionary.

 

I'd argue that APES was also evolutionary. Gollum ---> Kong  ---> Caesar. Mocap's not new, and unless I'm mistaken, no major new breakthroughs were created for APES (not discounting scene or shot-specific solutions they needed to come up with). 

 

Shrug. APES is definitely the better film, and Caesar is amazing, amazing work. I just found TRANSFORMERS to be more "Holy shit!" sorts of, well, convincing, which is a really weird word to use on that film. 

 

 

post #102 of 207

Just as many Apes in RISE looked BETTER than Caesar. Maurice? Still blows my mind.

 

Also, sucks for Serkis, but tell me how Caesar was a supporting role in that movie.

post #103 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil View Post

Just as many Apes in RISE looked BETTER than Caesar. Maurice? Still blows my mind.

 

Also, sucks for Serkis, but tell me how Caesar was a supporting role in that movie.


Maurice, the gorilla, and the scarred chimp were the tits. I found Caesar's rival less than convincing. I understood the look they were going for, but he look more unfinished than balding.

 

To me, at least.

 

post #104 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by MichaelM View Post

 

 

I'd argue that APES was also evolutionary. Gollum ---> Kong  ---> Caesar. Mocap's not new, and unless I'm mistaken, no major new breakthroughs were created for APES (not discounting scene or shot-specific solutions they needed to come up with). 

 

 

Totally agree. Great work by Serkis and he deserves a nod, but not "revolutionary".
 

 

post #105 of 207

I'd argue Caesar is a quantum leap from what was done with Kong and Gollum, whereas Transformers was merely more of the same, however well done it was.

post #106 of 207

Gentlemen, gentlemen. Can't we just settle and say Transformers Dark of the Moon as a film and experience is cinematic syphilis, and we would just really prefer to give the awards to the movie that's actually good, rather than Michael Bay purging all bodily secretions at us for 2 and a half hours?

 

Yes, the effects in Dark of the Moon are good. But triplefuck that movie.

post #107 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

I'd argue Caesar is a quantum leap from what was done with Kong and Gollum, whereas Transformers was merely more of the same, however well done it was.



How so? From what I understand, it's been a very solid line of development from Gollum to Caesar. Also, from what I've seen of the Kong BTS features, it's very similar to what was done in APES, down to the metal "crutches" used by the mocap acators to simulate ape movement. And the way facial movements were captured, the in-scene acting by Serkis, etc. - it's all basically the same. It may be far BETTER in consistent quality and detail than Gollum, but it's the same basic process, refined. That's evolutionary, not revolutionary.

 

BTW, I don't disagree that TRANSFORMERS represents "more of the same" - I just think it was done staggeringly well. The movie itself...well, that's a whole different discussion. But I think the scale, quality, and sheer amount of effects are damn phenomenal. 

 

 

post #108 of 207

Speaking of visual effects, I would have liked to see Tree of Life / Douglas Trumbull get a nod there.  I know the CG dinosaurs look like shit, but apparently a lot of the universe creation sequence was done practically, with paints and fluorescent dyes and other fluid-based effects.  Pretty neat.  

post #109 of 207

Not to beat a cliche to death, but if we're going by MOST Visual Effects then TRANSFORMERS 3 takes the gold

post #110 of 207

Yeah, but that dino. It'd be the Jonah Hill of the Vis Effects noms.

 

Speaking of which, I like Hill getting nominated, because he's the only oddball nominee in that category, which is usually one of the best and is kind of dull this year. Everyone knows Plummer gets it, largely for being a well respected pro who's never got his due and also for being at death's door. If there was a singe person who could step up and challenge him, it would help a lot, but there isn't really. I mean, yeah, I wish it had been Serkis, but that ain't happening. Consider the man he's always compared to, Lon Chaney, who was never nominated for shit.

post #111 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by fuzzy dunlop View Post

Speaking of visual effects, I would have liked to see Tree of Life / Douglas Trumbull get a nod there.  I know the CG dinosaurs look like shit, but apparently a lot of the universe creation sequence was done practically, with paints and fluorescent dyes and other fluid-based effects.  Pretty neat.  


 

This. Several times this. But it's not like the Academy knows what innovation and invention looks like in that department. Otherwise, The Fountain and Children of Men would've gotten what they deserved there.

post #112 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post


That's not surprising really.

 


Tried to look it up, but can't find any info.  I'm guessing technical (or music?) nominations for both.

 


Couldn't find any info? Here, I found this little site

post #113 of 207

I did not see Transformers, but in theory I agree that if it had the best FX, it should be awarded no matter how shitty it was. The thing that makes the Oscars suspect more than anything else is the suggestion that SOMEHOW, ALL the best shit - costuming, sound design, makeup, acting, all of it - happened to occur within the same 15 movies. Standout things in bad movies should be fair game (e.g., Kurt Russell should have been nominated for Dark Blue, a not-good movie).

post #114 of 207

The Chicago sequence does have some pretty audacious stuff, most of them involving the skyscraper collapse, but even in that respect, there's far more fascinating "How-the-fuck-did-they-do-that?" visuals in Tree of Life, in aid of even more fascinating ideas. In an ideal world, that's the other half of what would make effects truly "the best".

 

(shitthrownatmein3...2....1...) Hell, by that logic, Sucker Punch and Green Lantern should've gotten nominated long before DOTM, and from a pure visual standpoint, they'd be right to do so, if only because Sucker Punch is a genuinely gorgeous movie to look at, Snyder's doing ambitious as hell camera work, especially in the Tomorrow Never Knows sequence, and the cosmic stuff in Green Lantern is actually really mind-blowingly vast and imaginative.

post #115 of 207

Concerning technical Oscars for Transformers 3; I think the Death Star analogy applies very well. Though I feel that some contractor getting blown up sucks, that shit not being around any more is much more important.

post #116 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe T View Post

-Demian Bichir was good, I suppose, but A Better Life is such a wet blanket Hollywood liberal movie. How much fucking back-and-forth is there in that movie between "I am a humble gardener!" and "I am the gangbanger son and gardening sucks"? If there's any screenplay that feels like it's written in capital letters, it's that one.


 

Bichir was really, really great in it and made up for a lot of the film's other issues. I dunno, there's some cringe worthy stuff in there for sure, but it's no Crash, or The Help. Plus once in a while, I think it's good for the soul to watch a film where you're rooting unconditionally for a character like that. I don't give a shit about the Oscars really, but if this gets Bichir more work then that's a good thing.

post #117 of 207

 

Quote:Leonard

Lisbeth Salander, in all her goth Mary Sue glory, was like Scarlett O'Hara or Effie in Dreamgirls. Whoever got that part, if they didn't suck, was guaranteed that nomination. Very happy that and the tech noms are all Dragon Tattoo got. 

 

 

I love you so fucking much.

post #118 of 207

Though I agree with the concept of giving the FX Oscar to the film that 'objectively' has the best FX work, I think it's a bit foolish to deny how much the quality of the film itself has on how we react to those FX.  The work in Transformers 3 was fantastic.  Seamless.  But because of the way they were used to assault the audience, they became completely numbing.  Rise of the Planet of the Apes wasn't like that.  Almost every FX moment was engaging and special.

 

Of course, I used to make the opposite claim when neither of the Matrix sequels got nominated for FX.  I know that Reloaded got a lot of shit (mostly for the Burly Brawl), but that disdain seemed to bleed over into Revolutions (which had a lot of fantastic work).

post #119 of 207

So in a traditional 5-nominee year, what would have been the Best Picture field?  Hugo and The Artist seem like locks due to the number of overall nominations they received, and The Help had the buzz factor going for it.  That leaves two spots, and I imagine those would have been War Horse (six overall nominations indicates some pretty wide support) and The Descendants.

post #120 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Workyticket View Post

What I Have Learned From This Thread: Fuck the Oscars. I need to see Empire of the Sun again, and soon.


Absolutely seconded.  I probably haven't seen it since the early 90's.  In fact, I don't even own the DVD, which I do believe I need to rectify.  

 

post #121 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken View Post


That's not surprising really.


Tried to look it up, but can't find any info.  I'm guessing technical (or music?) nominations for both.


No, you guys are right. I misread something on Wikipedia. Looks like Terminal, Always, and Sugarland Express didn't get nothin'.

post #122 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post

So in a traditional 5-nominee year, what would have been the Best Picture field?  Hugo and The Artist seem like locks due to the number of overall nominations they received, and The Help had the buzz factor going for it.  That leaves two spots, and I imagine those would have been War Horse (six overall nominations indicates some pretty wide support) and The Descendants.


I think MIDNIGHT IN PARIS would have gotten in before War Horse, actually.  

 

post #123 of 207

Good point, the director nomination for Allen probably would have helped there.

 

Although Moneyball got two acting nominations, and the actors' branch has a lot of influence.

post #124 of 207

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Justin Clark View Post

The Chicago sequence does have some pretty audacious stuff, most of them involving the skyscraper collapse, but even in that respect, there's far more fascinating "How-the-fuck-did-they-do-that?" visuals in Tree of Life, in aid of even more fascinating ideas. In an ideal world, that's the other half of what would make effects truly "the best".

 

(shitthrownatmein3...2....1...) Hell, by that logic, Sucker Punch and Green Lantern should've gotten nominated long before DOTM, and from a pure visual standpoint, they'd be right to do so, if only because Sucker Punch is a genuinely gorgeous movie to look at, Snyder's doing ambitious as hell camera work, especially in the Tomorrow Never Knows sequence, and the cosmic stuff in Green Lantern is actually really mind-blowingly vast and imaginative.



If TREE OF LIFE had been nominated for VFX, I'd be completely rooting for it to win, because Justin's completely on the money here. For sheer beauty and "how did they make that?" factor.

 

And I don't disagree about SUCKER PUNCH's visuals, either. That flick's a stinky, wet sack of shit, but the visual effects are great.



Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

Though I agree with the concept of giving the FX Oscar to the film that 'objectively' has the best FX work, I think it's a bit foolish to deny how much the quality of the film itself has on how we react to those FX.  The work in Transformers 3 was fantastic.  Seamless.  But because of the way they were used to assault the audience, they became completely numbing.  Rise of the Planet of the Apes wasn't like that.  Almost every FX moment was engaging and special.

 

Of course, I used to make the opposite claim when neither of the Matrix sequels got nominated for FX.  I know that Reloaded got a lot of shit (mostly for the Burly Brawl), but that disdain seemed to bleed over into Revolutions (which had a lot of fantastic work).


Agreed. Hero jump shots of the apes excluded, all of the effects in APES serve the story, not vice versa. TRANSFORMERS is nothing but militaristic, masturbatory mayhem serving only itself.

 

post #125 of 207
post #126 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambler View Post



The cadillac of the skies scene is one of the best things Spielberg did in the 80s.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02BBtN-P0lc

 


 

I've been watching Top Gear too much lately, Bale's dialogue seems written by Jeremy Clarkson. 

 

And not that he's lacking for accolades, but I wouldn't mind Williams winning for War Horse. That's my favorite of the nominees.

post #127 of 207

So, knowing about the Acadamy's weighted voting policies (a film can only be nominated for Best Picture if 5% of the voters listed it at the top spot), how the red fuck did Extremely Loud make it in? No one but no one like that movie. Were there actually enough people that liked it more than, say, ANY of the other nominated pictures? Is it a possibility that some sort of fix is in here?

 

I also wanted to give The Help a little bit of regard. It wouldn't make my top twenty of the year for sure, but it works pretty damn well for the target audience, and in the 90s, I think a crowd pleaser like this would be the prohibitive front runner. I totally get why it's there.

post #128 of 207

Apes actually did empower a very distinct, measurable leap from previous mo-cap tech as it took the process out of the studio and onto locations. Even Avatar was bound to a studio, whereas for this film WETA devleoped systems that could be used on outside, traditionally lit sets. So there's that.

 

But you also can start getting into things like volume of effects, photorealism leaps, and including shit like the flight-suit jumps in TF3. Not really sure how wide the considerations are for the award.

post #129 of 207

"Extremely Loud" was made for one audience and one audience only. Not 25-50's. Not teens. Not women. Not minorities.

The Academy.

 

Shit was reverse-engineered.

post #130 of 207
post #131 of 207

By the way, Renn, that was one great article. Well done, top to bottom.

post #132 of 207

FX work, like acting, directing and editing, provides subjective value to a movie.  What does BEST Visual FX even mean?  Is there actually BEST Acting, or BEST Art Direction?

In the end, BEST is a poor choice of word for "most effective", which is what they actually mean for every single category.  Back in 2005, I spent a long time dissecting this on another forum.  War of the Worlds, Revenge of the Sith (not even nominated, to the howls against injustice by many SW fans), and King Kong were my discussion points.

 

Some readings of the award tend to think most photorealistic CG effects constitute BEST (War of the Worlds).  Some think greatest number of high quality visual effects (Revenge of the Sith).  I was arguiong that Kong was always going to win, because it was the most effective use of CG effects.  Effects don't exist in a vacuum.  Like the other disciplines, the contribute to a stew of creativity to tell a story.  That voting perspective hurts films like Transformers, because the stories are so worthless.  The stories are essentially the effects.  The largest voting bloc is actors though.  They will always vote for effects that involve the audience in the story, even they are a bit less polished.

 

For this reason, Rise is the film to beat in my mind.  It may lose to another darling, but it marries effects with dramatic acting, and trhe effects are critical to telling THAT story (just like Kong or The Matrix).  In the end, unless you truly shatter some technical barrier (like The Abyss or something), the voting will tend to favor the story over the technical aspects of the effects.

 

Just like every other category.

post #133 of 207

Such wise and sensible words.

 

I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask that you leave.

 

(I'd rep you, but I'm out!)

post #134 of 207


The Golden Compass beat Transformers for that award.  None of you know shit. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by mcnooj82 View Post

(I'd rep you, but I'm out!)


 

You keep saying this in every thread, and I need someone to explain this fucking rep system to me.  How does one run out of rep?!

 

post #135 of 207

I assume it's to prevent people from using the rep system like the Facebook LIKE button.

 

You only have so many THUMBS UP to give for a certain period of time.  I'm usually repping people left and right, so I run out fast.

 

And yeah... that Golden Compass win for VFX was mind-boggling.

post #136 of 207

Originally Posted by Ratty View Post

 

 In fact, I don't even own the DVD, which I do believe I need to rectify.  


True story: I own the DVD, and yet have absolutely no idea where I got it from. Seriously.

 

I'm usually repping people left and right, so I run out fast.

 

You're such a rep slut.

 

Anyway, Extremely Loud had 9/11, autism, 9/11, muteness, 9/11, was directed by Stephen Doldrums, and had 9/11. Also it's so fucking weird that it's nominated for Best Picture and only one other award.

post #137 of 207

Here's my question: why is everyone bitching about Jonah Hill getting nominated? I haven't seen Moneyball, but I've heard he does some of his best work there. Is it just a "good, but others deserved it more" type thing?

 

Otherwise, this and all the discussion reminds me that I've still got plenty of stuff from last year to see.

 

And add me to the "Fuck Dark of the Moon" chorus.

post #138 of 207

Jonah Hill did a "quiet" geeky kind of non presence performance.  For what the character is he did a fine job, but that's the thing.  This guy is a mumbling barely present character by definition.  There's not a lot of room for an incredible layered performance. 

post #139 of 207

Based on the way the trailer sold Jonah Hill's character's participation in the story, I could see such a nomination making sense.  But in the actual film, he's mostly there to explain the whole sabermetrics thing.  He's not really much of a character at all.  That's what's weird about it.  He does perfectly fine with what he was given.

post #140 of 207

I also think a lot of the people bitching about Hill (not here, necessarily) are those who just can't stand his comedic persona, and so they'd hate him no matter what he did.  Michael Cera gets the same treatment.  Really most comedic actors have their share of people who just, for whatever reason, cannot stand them.

post #141 of 207

Well, it's also the sketchiest-written character in the category. I like Hill, but he's only there because there are a lot of Moneyball admirerers in the Academy.

post #142 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bailey View Post

I also think a lot of the people bitching about Hill (not here, necessarily) are those who just can't stand his comedic persona, and so they'd hate him no matter what he did.  Michael Cera gets the same treatment.  Really most comedic actors have their share of people who just, for whatever reason, cannot stand them.



It would be like if Shia LaBeouf ever got a nomination.  I imagine a lot of people here would have a reaction akin to a rabid animal.

post #143 of 207

Oh man there's an amazing rabid animal joke in there somewhere, I just can't think of it...

 

 

post #144 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarleyQuinn22 View Post



It would be like if Shia LaBeouf ever got a nomination.  I imagine a lot of people here would have a reaction akin to a rabid animal.


See, my problem with LaBeouf isn't his talent (he clearly has it), it's that he keeps picking shitty movies to be in. Say what you will about Cera (Year One notwithstanding), he has a much more interesting slate of films post-Arrested Development.

 

Hell, even Hill has been branching out lately, in addition to slimming down.

post #145 of 207

We'll see with Wettest County I guess.

post #146 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

Oh man there's an amazing rabid animal joke in there somewhere, I just can't think of it...

 

 



When you think of one, involve the Indy 4 monkeys somehow.

post #147 of 207
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris Spider View Post


See, my problem with LaBeouf isn't his talent (he clearly has it), it's that he keeps picking shitty movies to be in. Say what you will about Cera (Year One notwithstanding), he has a much more interesting slate of films post-Arrested Development.

 

Hell, even Hill has been branching out lately, in addition to slimming down.



LaBeouf reminds me of Vin Diesel Both actors choose films that should be great and successful, but they don't quite catch on. Plus, both are not adept at managing their public image. Shia got chances to work with Oliver Stone and Steven Spielberg, in major roles in "franchise" pictures.

 

I mean, would you turn down a chance to play Indiana Jones' son? Or the chance to play opposite to Michael Douglas as Gordon Gecko, in a film inspired by Wall Street and the recent financial crisis?! Fuck no you wouldn't. And the failures of those films don't rest with Shia or the other actors.

 

As for Transformers, for such shitty movies, they sure bring in a lot of coin.

 

EDITED TO ADD: another Chewer did an awesome analysis of Vin Diesel's career, and how each movie he made could have looked like a great career choice at the time he made it, but none (except for Riddick) worked out. EG getting to work with Sidney Lumet, in a leading role.


Edited by Cylon Baby - 1/26/12 at 1:03pm
post #148 of 207

Diesel's got a bad public image?  Other than being a not so secret nerd, what's bad?

 

Edit: Not to say being a nerd is bad, but that's the most public thing I can remember about him.  It plays against the tough guy characters he portrays?  Which didn't affect Fast and Furious or Fast Five.


Edited by neoolong - 1/26/12 at 1:00pm
post #149 of 207

Possibly gay? No idea, actually.

post #150 of 207

Never really affected Tom Cruise.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: CHUD.COM Main
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › CHUD.COM Main › The Asshole & The Ecstasy: 2012 ACADEMY AWARDS