Alot of the old white guys are like to be some of the only ones who've even seen all the movies in question.
Right. But their opinions will largely deviate from the general population.
I'd be unsurprised I'd Mad Max (and Room, and Revenant) all had a fair number of #1 and #4 votes. Because while there are cool grandpas who might dig them, the rest are like "meh, get off my lawn."
Whereas the winner needs to be the one that /most/ grandpas think is pretty spiffy.
It's not that it's a bunch of grumpy old men. It's that winning requires a consensus (rather than a plurality) of those grumpy old men.
The opinions of people who haven't even seen all the movie are equally as flawed, just in a different way.
Ex Machina picked up Best Visual Effects? Wow, that is very interesting. I would not have guessed that.
A surprise, but not a bad choice. It was impressive, if understated compared to the rest.
Very understated, yeah. I like that it won but it seemed like the dark horse candidate there.
Now that I think about it, two of those movies had female leads who had to wear green to have fake limbs.
I think the main reason Ex Machina got the award is because its effects were flawless and it was on a much lower budget than the other movies. That impressed many.
Ex Machina picked up Best Visual Effects? Wow, that is very interesting. I would not have guessed that.
A surprise, but not a bad choice. It was impressive, if understated compared to the rest.
Very understated, yeah. I like that it won but it seemed like the dark horse candidate there.
Now that I think about it, two of those movies had female leads who had to wear green to have fake limbs.
I think the main reason Ex Machina got the award is because its effects were flawless and it was on a much lower budget than the other movies. That impressed many.
I liked Ex Machina a lot. I'm not sure if it had "best" effects considering it didn't have very many effects that I remember. Robot parts were only on screen for like 25-30 minutes of the film. Still happy it won something.
Alot of the old white guys are like to be some of the only ones who've even seen all the movies in question.
Right. But their opinions will largely deviate from the general population.
I'd be unsurprised I'd Mad Max (and Room, and Revenant) all had a fair number of #1 and #4 votes. Because while there are cool grandpas who might dig them, the rest are like "meh, get off my lawn."
Whereas the winner needs to be the one that /most/ grandpas think is pretty spiffy.
It's not that it's a bunch of grumpy old men. It's that winning requires a consensus (rather than a plurality) of those grumpy old men.
The opinions of people who haven't even seen all the movie are equally as flawed, just in a different way.
I can agree with that. And of course I haven't even seen Spotlight, so.....
I used to make a point of seeing all the major nominees (picture, director, acting, screenplay, cinematography, etc). I miss that. But my ex was much more into movies, so usually we'd seen many of them anyway while in theaters, it was just a matter of catch-up on the ones that hadn't played locally (or for long).
I might do that again next year.
Like this year the only picture nominee I'm okay having skipped is Brooklyn. And every year there are at least 1-2 others I can't be bothered with between all the acting or screenplay noms. But I do enjoy it more when I've actually seen most everything.
Whoever was writing for presenters and Rock did a terrible job, unless it was all front loaded and I missed the good stuff. It alternated between boring and painfully unfunny. The only person who made me laugh was Louie.
You know, I wonder if the Academy's drive toward "diverse" (read: what old white men consider diverse) voters will yield different results. I doubt it will succeed at solving the issue it was designed for, since Hollywood will go on thinking that a) a "black" movie has to be about either slavery or crime and b) that the Everyman must be white.
But I'd like to see the winners trend away from traditional Oscar bait.
In my heart of hearts, I want the Best Animated category to be abolished, and those movies pooled with the other Best Picture noms- but I also want an orange lightsaber.
Ex Machina picked up Best Visual Effects? Wow, that is very interesting. I would not have guessed that.
A surprise, but not a bad choice. It was impressive, if understated compared to the rest.
I have to disagree. This is the one award where I feel Fury Road was better choice. The effects where so understated that you could have taken them out and the movie wouldn't have suffered at all. Make Alicia Vikanders robot character look fully human from the get go kind of thing.
Ex Machina strength was its acting, with a little SFX work to underscore it.
Fury Road had CGI, Practical Effects and Stunts that where vital to the story. It had great acting, but without the effects, it could not have been told.
It did get best Editing, but should have had Cinematography as well. Fury Road is one well shot and edited movie.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+4
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
I haven't seen Spotlight, and I'm not about to say it wasn't a good movie.
I will say that every clip they showed of it made it look incredibly bland and Oscar baity. Here is a white guy yelling dramatically! Here is a person talking about a terrible injustice! Here are journalists talking determinedly about doing their jobs!
If it wasn't already on my watch list, these clips wouldn't have made me put it on there.
But I've only seen half the Best Picture noms, so I won't get too irate about it. Mad Max did as well as is reasonably hoped, so I'm good.
Also: Morricone is fucking adorable. I love that he won, and his speech was endearing as hell.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
As for Spotlight, it really highlights what is wrong with the Academy. Its a great movie I am told(haven't seen it, probably never will, its subject matter is that depressing), but...
You could have told the same story as a documentary. The events it depicts where only 15 years ago. It would be trivially easy to gather up the involved for a talking heads documentary interspersed with news and video footage.
Done right, it could have been a Oscar contender too.
Which brings me to the Academy, which has a big biopic problem. Spotlight was a good movie, but giving it the Oscar isn't the same as giving an Oscar to the reporters of the Boston Globe. Its giving an Oscar to a fictional re-telling of what they did. The Reporters at the Boston Globe? They already have an award. They already won a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service Reporting in 2003.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
+5
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Spotlight would have made a much better documentary, because that would have excused the fact that it's not really a story.
Honestly Spotlight fails on every major Oscar front but the issues one. It doesn't advance the art of cinema; it's not exceptional entertainment; it's not a towering example of any one kind of cinematic technique (other than, the Oscars might argue, screenwriting), and it's not super relevant to our world today.
I mean, I'm glad The Revenant didn't win. But I don't think Spotlight deserved to be Best Picture.
That said, this was otherwise a pretty good slate.
+1
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
One thing about Spotlight - it's basically an (absolutely deserved) attack on the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is an easy target on the United States.
This is kind of arcane (who cares about documentaries anyway, right? Right?), but back in 2013 the best documentary award went to "Looking for Sugar Man", a completely banal piece about South Africans trying to learn more about an obscure American singer in the pre-Google era, over "The Invisible War", a hard-hitting report about rape in the US military.
What I'm trying to say is that it's easy (and thus, more Oscar-baity) to go "anti-Catholic" in 2016, but more uncomfortable to go "anti-USA military" in 2012 (or 2016!) or "here's this story about two gay cowboys" in 2005.
I've heard good things about Spotlight but never amazing win-best-picture things.
Weird.
I saw Spotlight and The Revenant on consecutive nights
Revenant was a movie about a man being attacked by bears, natives and his comrades in the most gorgeous wilderness imaginable, and yet somehow still managed to bore me
Spotlight was about 5 people sitting at a desk, and was absolutely riveting
It's not an 'event' movie by any stretch of the imagination but it had the best writing and performances (from a large-ish ensemble no less) of any movie I saw this year
Also, as much as much as I'd like Fury Road to take it, in my heart of hearts I knew it wouldn't. Apart from Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy the acting was fucking abysmal which I think stopped it in its tracks for best picture. It won for basically everything else though, which pleases me.
ALRIGHT FINE I GOT AN AVATAR
Steam: adamjnet
+2
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Fury Road won every single award it deserved to... Though I probably would have given it best effects over Ex Machina just for how much they did practically. Ex Machina was amazing, Fury Road was mind boggling.
Like said above, there were acting issues that keep Fury Road from grabbing any of the big 4, and that's fine. It was still a great movie and it took home more Oscar gold than anyone else.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Apart from Charlize Theron and Tom Hardy the acting was fucking abysmal which I think stopped it in its tracks for best picture.
I'd disagree with that - the acting was stylised, it was over the top and operatic, but it was spot on. At the same time, I think it's almost impossible to compare to something that has more naturalistic acting.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I'm reasonably happy with all the award recipients. Haven't seen Spotlight but I guess I'll have to see it now. All in all it was a pretty good year, nominee-wise. Usually there are a few nominations (and wins) that I vehemently disagree with, but not this time.
That said, the gala itself was fucking terrible. Completely unentertaining and weirdly amateurish, with atrocious camera work. For the first time ever, I found myself constantly glancing at my watch in boredom.
Tina Fey and Louis CK did manage to cheer me up briefly. And I loved Leo's speech.
When I see trailers for spotlight I just think "Yes. I know. Everyone knows. Why are you making this?"
I found Trumbo and its story of the anti communist sentiment of the Cold War and the black list more interesting.
Also it was funny at times.
This is maybe something that belongs more in the movie thread, but I'm still very confused about Trumbo. It's a movie about Communist protagonists being persecuted for their beliefs, but it's also a movie where the importance of self-determined work is vital and virtually every relationship is transactional/capitalist. I can't tell whether it's super clever or super insulting to make a movie about a real group of people that seems to believe the exact opposite of what they did. It's possible I'm wrong about the movie, probably more possible that I'm wrong about Communism. And the film does heavily imply that Trumbo himself was sort of halfway between the two points, a man whose ideals contrasted sharply with his pragmatic instincts. I dunno.
0
Options
Johnny ChopsockyScootaloo! We have to cook!Grillin' HaysenburgersRegistered Userregular
Fury Road won every single award it deserved to... Though I probably would have given it best effects over Ex Machina just for how much they did practically. Ex Machina was amazing, Fury Road was mind boggling.
Like said above, there were acting issues that keep Fury Road from grabbing any of the big 4, and that's fine. It was still a great movie and it took home more Oscar gold than anyone else.
I dunno, I'd say George Miller deserved Best Director the most out of that crop. His shoot was longer, more at the mercy of the elements, involved more moving parts and he took all of it and put an entire genre on notice at the age of 70.
On a different note, Roger Deakins got fucking robbed.
When I see trailers for spotlight I just think "Yes. I know. Everyone knows. Why are you making this?"
I found Trumbo and its story of the anti communist sentiment of the Cold War and the black list more interesting.
Also it was funny at times.
This is maybe something that belongs more in the movie thread, but I'm still very confused about Trumbo. It's a movie about Communist protagonists being persecuted for their beliefs, but it's also a movie where the importance of self-determined work is vital and virtually every relationship is transactional/capitalist. I can't tell whether it's super clever or super insulting to make a movie about a real group of people that seems to believe the exact opposite of what they did. It's possible I'm wrong about the movie, probably more possible that I'm wrong about Communism. And the film does heavily imply that Trumbo himself was sort of halfway between the two points, a man whose ideals contrasted sharply with his pragmatic instincts. I dunno.
Just because they believed in communism doesn't change the fact that they lived in a capitalist country. They still had to you know, go to work, to eat and live and support their families.
I'm not surprised in the least that Ex Machina got best visual effects over Fury Road (though I think the CGI of The Force Awakens was better than Ex Machina). I love Fury Road, in fact I saw it 4 times in the theater in as many weeks. And there were also a lot of great practical effects in Fury Road, but some of the CGI was truly awful. The way the Doof Warrior's truck tumbled into the canyon, with the guitar flying at the viewer, it honestly made me cringe, it was that bad.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Fury Road won every single award it deserved to... Though I probably would have given it best effects over Ex Machina just for how much they did practically. Ex Machina was amazing, Fury Road was mind boggling.
Like said above, there were acting issues that keep Fury Road from grabbing any of the big 4, and that's fine. It was still a great movie and it took home more Oscar gold than anyone else.
I dunno, I'd say George Miller deserved Best Director the most out of that crop. His shoot was longer, more at the mercy of the elements, involved more moving parts and he took all of it and put an entire genre on notice at the age of 70.
On a different note, Roger Deakins got fucking robbed.
Not only was Miller's task super hard, but it wasn't an option to do it any other way. He filmed in the desert because he had to. He had ridiculously complicated effects work because it was the only way to get those shots.
He wasn't making arbitrary decisions to only use natural lighting, or starving himself to death and eating buffalo parts so he could be Super Method. Miller's difficulties weren't self imposed, so I respect those more. It's like a person juggling chainsaws while blindfolded versus a person juggling chainsaws who is actually blind.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm not surprised in the least that Ex Machina got best visual effects over Fury Road (though I think the CGI of The Force Awakens was better than Ex Machina). I love Fury Road, in fact I saw it 4 times in the theater in as many weeks. And there were also a lot of great practical effects in Fury Road, but some of the CGI was truly awful. The way the Doof Warrior's truck tumbled into the canyon, with the guitar flying at the viewer, it honestly made me cringe, it was that bad.
Yea... the 3d gags there did not add any worth to the experience
I'm not surprised in the least that Ex Machina got best visual effects over Fury Road (though I think the CGI of The Force Awakens was better than Ex Machina). I love Fury Road, in fact I saw it 4 times in the theater in as many weeks. And there were also a lot of great practical effects in Fury Road, but some of the CGI was truly awful. The way the Doof Warrior's truck tumbled into the canyon, with the guitar flying at the viewer, it honestly made me cringe, it was that bad.
The sequence made use of numerous Namibia plates, including stationary action that would be enhanced with moving backgrounds, canyon augmentation, a War Rig and other vehicle crash stunts. Surprisingly, the final twisted mix of vehicle pieces, metal and bungie-corded guitar that fly towards camera were largely practical effects.
“I thought the best we could do was at least shoot the guitar,” says Jackson. “It was all wires and flame throwers and had fuel lines that were broken and leaking fuel and various bits of wires dangling off. I just imagined that for real coming up to the camera and bouncing back. We set up a shoot for that where we hung the guitar from bungies on a cherry picker. I suggested that if you pull the guitar back and release it in exactly the same way it will always go back to the same spot. We released it and marked where it was going to and put a camera exactly there, so we could repeat that event and push the camera slightly closer.”
Even the steering wheel that flies out after the guitar was achieved photographically, as Jackson explains: “We shot that on a little gimbal spinning. In the end, George wanted to push right into the mouth of the wheel, but the resolution wasn’t enough, so we tracked the action of the spinning wheel on the gimbal and I built a little rig to photograph that with a high res stills camera. So we matched the motion of the spinning one and did a really high res version - like stop motion. Pushing right into the mouth of the steering wheel was all a live action element.”
They did Spotlight a pretty big disservice by only really showing the most shouty moments; that one Mark Ruffalo scene is so out of tone with the rest of the film that it might as well be a different movie. And the arguments that it lacked artistry are absurd. Spotlight is a story that knows how to get out of its own way. It doesn't need any sweeping camera movements or overly dramatic moments (again, shouty Ruffalo being the exception and a concession to literalism since according to the real life figures involved that breakdown actually happened), it's "just" a story told well. And yes, Fury Road should have won, but Spotlight is a very good movie and I'm glad the academy recognized something understated and impeccably executed rather than rewarding The Revenant for being the most movie.
Fury Road won every single award it deserved to... Though I probably would have given it best effects over Ex Machina just for how much they did practically. Ex Machina was amazing, Fury Road was mind boggling.
Like said above, there were acting issues that keep Fury Road from grabbing any of the big 4, and that's fine. It was still a great movie and it took home more Oscar gold than anyone else.
How was it not even nominated for Best Original Screenplay?! You can argue that some ropey acting kept it from Best Picture, but the writing in that movie was gold.
0
Options
ElJeffeNot actually a mod.Roaming the streets, waving his gun around.Moderator, ClubPAmod
Because 90% of the script was
TRUCK EXPLODES
CAR DRIVES REALLY FAST
CAR CRASHES INTO OTHER CAR
CARS EXPLODE
FURIOSA LOOKS FUCKING AWESOME
WAR BOY EXPLODES
It was a great film, but the screenplay wasn't Oscar caliber.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I'm not surprised in the least that Ex Machina got best visual effects over Fury Road (though I think the CGI of The Force Awakens was better than Ex Machina). I love Fury Road, in fact I saw it 4 times in the theater in as many weeks. And there were also a lot of great practical effects in Fury Road, but some of the CGI was truly awful. The way the Doof Warrior's truck tumbled into the canyon, with the guitar flying at the viewer, it honestly made me cringe, it was that bad.
The sequence made use of numerous Namibia plates, including stationary action that would be enhanced with moving backgrounds, canyon augmentation, a War Rig and other vehicle crash stunts. Surprisingly, the final twisted mix of vehicle pieces, metal and bungie-corded guitar that fly towards camera were largely practical effects.
“I thought the best we could do was at least shoot the guitar,” says Jackson. “It was all wires and flame throwers and had fuel lines that were broken and leaking fuel and various bits of wires dangling off. I just imagined that for real coming up to the camera and bouncing back. We set up a shoot for that where we hung the guitar from bungies on a cherry picker. I suggested that if you pull the guitar back and release it in exactly the same way it will always go back to the same spot. We released it and marked where it was going to and put a camera exactly there, so we could repeat that event and push the camera slightly closer.”
Even the steering wheel that flies out after the guitar was achieved photographically, as Jackson explains: “We shot that on a little gimbal spinning. In the end, George wanted to push right into the mouth of the wheel, but the resolution wasn’t enough, so we tracked the action of the spinning wheel on the gimbal and I built a little rig to photograph that with a high res stills camera. So we matched the motion of the spinning one and did a really high res version - like stop motion. Pushing right into the mouth of the steering wheel was all a live action element.”
Which is all well and fine, but the problem was that they were clearly going for the 3D gimmick of flying at the viewer's face. But, the fact that the shot was framed from so far away, and that the guitar got shot so far forward, that it crossed the uncanny valley (to me), because that guitar would have had to shoot a couple hundred yards in distance at least, which visually just doesn't make sense.
I would argue that, stylistically, if you take a practical shot, and make it look like really bad CGI, that's an even worse effects sin than simply using bad CGI to start with.
I'm not surprised in the least that Ex Machina got best visual effects over Fury Road (though I think the CGI of The Force Awakens was better than Ex Machina). I love Fury Road, in fact I saw it 4 times in the theater in as many weeks. And there were also a lot of great practical effects in Fury Road, but some of the CGI was truly awful. The way the Doof Warrior's truck tumbled into the canyon, with the guitar flying at the viewer, it honestly made me cringe, it was that bad.
The sequence made use of numerous Namibia plates, including stationary action that would be enhanced with moving backgrounds, canyon augmentation, a War Rig and other vehicle crash stunts. Surprisingly, the final twisted mix of vehicle pieces, metal and bungie-corded guitar that fly towards camera were largely practical effects.
“I thought the best we could do was at least shoot the guitar,” says Jackson. “It was all wires and flame throwers and had fuel lines that were broken and leaking fuel and various bits of wires dangling off. I just imagined that for real coming up to the camera and bouncing back. We set up a shoot for that where we hung the guitar from bungies on a cherry picker. I suggested that if you pull the guitar back and release it in exactly the same way it will always go back to the same spot. We released it and marked where it was going to and put a camera exactly there, so we could repeat that event and push the camera slightly closer.”
Even the steering wheel that flies out after the guitar was achieved photographically, as Jackson explains: “We shot that on a little gimbal spinning. In the end, George wanted to push right into the mouth of the wheel, but the resolution wasn’t enough, so we tracked the action of the spinning wheel on the gimbal and I built a little rig to photograph that with a high res stills camera. So we matched the motion of the spinning one and did a really high res version - like stop motion. Pushing right into the mouth of the steering wheel was all a live action element.”
Which is all well and fine, but the problem was that they were clearly going for the 3D gimmick of flying at the viewer's face. But, the fact that the shot was framed from so far away, and that the guitar got shot so far forward, that it crossed the uncanny valley (to me), because that guitar would have had to shoot a couple hundred yards in distance at least, which visually just doesn't make sense.
I would argue that, stylistically, if you take a practical shot, and make it look like really bad CGI, that's an even worse effects sin than simply using bad CGI to start with.
It could also be the high frame rate of the camera that was shooting the scene, too. *shrugs*
Really, I saw nothing wrong with the scene (I really enjoyed that the Doof Warrior got an epic sendoff). I would argue that it's just your subjective opinion on it, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way or anything. Having different opinions on a great movie is great!
0
Options
KetarCome on upstairswe're having a partyRegistered Userregular
I'm not surprised in the least that Ex Machina got best visual effects over Fury Road (though I think the CGI of The Force Awakens was better than Ex Machina). I love Fury Road, in fact I saw it 4 times in the theater in as many weeks. And there were also a lot of great practical effects in Fury Road, but some of the CGI was truly awful. The way the Doof Warrior's truck tumbled into the canyon, with the guitar flying at the viewer, it honestly made me cringe, it was that bad.
The sequence made use of numerous Namibia plates, including stationary action that would be enhanced with moving backgrounds, canyon augmentation, a War Rig and other vehicle crash stunts. Surprisingly, the final twisted mix of vehicle pieces, metal and bungie-corded guitar that fly towards camera were largely practical effects.
“I thought the best we could do was at least shoot the guitar,” says Jackson. “It was all wires and flame throwers and had fuel lines that were broken and leaking fuel and various bits of wires dangling off. I just imagined that for real coming up to the camera and bouncing back. We set up a shoot for that where we hung the guitar from bungies on a cherry picker. I suggested that if you pull the guitar back and release it in exactly the same way it will always go back to the same spot. We released it and marked where it was going to and put a camera exactly there, so we could repeat that event and push the camera slightly closer.”
Even the steering wheel that flies out after the guitar was achieved photographically, as Jackson explains: “We shot that on a little gimbal spinning. In the end, George wanted to push right into the mouth of the wheel, but the resolution wasn’t enough, so we tracked the action of the spinning wheel on the gimbal and I built a little rig to photograph that with a high res stills camera. So we matched the motion of the spinning one and did a really high res version - like stop motion. Pushing right into the mouth of the steering wheel was all a live action element.”
Which is all well and fine, but the problem was that they were clearly going for the 3D gimmick of flying at the viewer's face. But, the fact that the shot was framed from so far away, and that the guitar got shot so far forward, that it crossed the uncanny valley (to me), because that guitar would have had to shoot a couple hundred yards in distance at least, which visually just doesn't make sense.
I would argue that, stylistically, if you take a practical shot, and make it look like really bad CGI, that's an even worse effects sin than simply using bad CGI to start with.
It could also be the high frame rate of the camera that was shooting the scene, too. *shrugs*
Really, I saw nothing wrong with the scene (I really enjoyed that the Doof Warrior got an epic sendoff). I would argue that it's just your subjective opinion on it, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way or anything. Having different opinions on a great movie is great!
Subjective, sure, but I agree. Since HBO has been showing the heck out of it lately I've watched Fury Road 4 times in the past week or so. I find myself unable to change the channel if I flip to it. And the visual effects at the end of that crash make that the single worst looking moment in the entire movie. I have to admit, I also thought it was lousy CGI. Knowing it was actually practical and reading about how much work when into it might actually make it worse for me.
I'm not surprised in the least that Ex Machina got best visual effects over Fury Road (though I think the CGI of The Force Awakens was better than Ex Machina). I love Fury Road, in fact I saw it 4 times in the theater in as many weeks. And there were also a lot of great practical effects in Fury Road, but some of the CGI was truly awful. The way the Doof Warrior's truck tumbled into the canyon, with the guitar flying at the viewer, it honestly made me cringe, it was that bad.
The sequence made use of numerous Namibia plates, including stationary action that would be enhanced with moving backgrounds, canyon augmentation, a War Rig and other vehicle crash stunts. Surprisingly, the final twisted mix of vehicle pieces, metal and bungie-corded guitar that fly towards camera were largely practical effects.
“I thought the best we could do was at least shoot the guitar,” says Jackson. “It was all wires and flame throwers and had fuel lines that were broken and leaking fuel and various bits of wires dangling off. I just imagined that for real coming up to the camera and bouncing back. We set up a shoot for that where we hung the guitar from bungies on a cherry picker. I suggested that if you pull the guitar back and release it in exactly the same way it will always go back to the same spot. We released it and marked where it was going to and put a camera exactly there, so we could repeat that event and push the camera slightly closer.”
Even the steering wheel that flies out after the guitar was achieved photographically, as Jackson explains: “We shot that on a little gimbal spinning. In the end, George wanted to push right into the mouth of the wheel, but the resolution wasn’t enough, so we tracked the action of the spinning wheel on the gimbal and I built a little rig to photograph that with a high res stills camera. So we matched the motion of the spinning one and did a really high res version - like stop motion. Pushing right into the mouth of the steering wheel was all a live action element.”
Which is all well and fine, but the problem was that they were clearly going for the 3D gimmick of flying at the viewer's face. But, the fact that the shot was framed from so far away, and that the guitar got shot so far forward, that it crossed the uncanny valley (to me), because that guitar would have had to shoot a couple hundred yards in distance at least, which visually just doesn't make sense.
I would argue that, stylistically, if you take a practical shot, and make it look like really bad CGI, that's an even worse effects sin than simply using bad CGI to start with.
It could also be the high frame rate of the camera that was shooting the scene, too. *shrugs*
Really, I saw nothing wrong with the scene (I really enjoyed that the Doof Warrior got an epic sendoff). I would argue that it's just your subjective opinion on it, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way or anything. Having different opinions on a great movie is great!
Subjective, sure, but I agree. Since HBO has been showing the heck out of it lately I've watched Fury Road 4 times in the past week or so. I find myself unable to change the channel if I flip to it. And the visual effects at the end of that crash make that the single worst looking moment in the entire movie. I have to admit, I also thought it was lousy CGI. Knowing it was actually practical and reading about how much work when into it might actually make it worse for me.
For me, the visual effect that I disliked was that gigantic psychedelic dust storm cloud in the middle of the movie. Opinions!
Posts
A surprise, but not a bad choice. It was impressive, if understated compared to the rest.
Very understated, yeah. I like that it won but it seemed like the dark horse candidate there.
Now that I think about it, two of those movies had female leads who had to wear green to have fake limbs.
The opinions of people who haven't even seen all the movie are equally as flawed, just in a different way.
I think the main reason Ex Machina got the award is because its effects were flawless and it was on a much lower budget than the other movies. That impressed many.
It was better than a Revenant sweep.
I liked Ex Machina a lot. I'm not sure if it had "best" effects considering it didn't have very many effects that I remember. Robot parts were only on screen for like 25-30 minutes of the film. Still happy it won something.
Twitch: KoopahTroopah - Steam: Koopah
I can agree with that. And of course I haven't even seen Spotlight, so.....
I might do that again next year.
Like this year the only picture nominee I'm okay having skipped is Brooklyn. And every year there are at least 1-2 others I can't be bothered with between all the acting or screenplay noms. But I do enjoy it more when I've actually seen most everything.
But I'd like to see the winners trend away from traditional Oscar bait.
In my heart of hearts, I want the Best Animated category to be abolished, and those movies pooled with the other Best Picture noms- but I also want an orange lightsaber.
I have to disagree. This is the one award where I feel Fury Road was better choice. The effects where so understated that you could have taken them out and the movie wouldn't have suffered at all. Make Alicia Vikanders robot character look fully human from the get go kind of thing.
Ex Machina strength was its acting, with a little SFX work to underscore it.
Fury Road had CGI, Practical Effects and Stunts that where vital to the story. It had great acting, but without the effects, it could not have been told.
It did get best Editing, but should have had Cinematography as well. Fury Road is one well shot and edited movie.
I will say that every clip they showed of it made it look incredibly bland and Oscar baity. Here is a white guy yelling dramatically! Here is a person talking about a terrible injustice! Here are journalists talking determinedly about doing their jobs!
If it wasn't already on my watch list, these clips wouldn't have made me put it on there.
But I've only seen half the Best Picture noms, so I won't get too irate about it. Mad Max did as well as is reasonably hoped, so I'm good.
Also: Morricone is fucking adorable. I love that he won, and his speech was endearing as hell.
You could have told the same story as a documentary. The events it depicts where only 15 years ago. It would be trivially easy to gather up the involved for a talking heads documentary interspersed with news and video footage.
Done right, it could have been a Oscar contender too.
Which brings me to the Academy, which has a big biopic problem. Spotlight was a good movie, but giving it the Oscar isn't the same as giving an Oscar to the reporters of the Boston Globe. Its giving an Oscar to a fictional re-telling of what they did. The Reporters at the Boston Globe? They already have an award. They already won a Pulitzer Prize for Public Service Reporting in 2003.
Honestly Spotlight fails on every major Oscar front but the issues one. It doesn't advance the art of cinema; it's not exceptional entertainment; it's not a towering example of any one kind of cinematic technique (other than, the Oscars might argue, screenwriting), and it's not super relevant to our world today.
I mean, I'm glad The Revenant didn't win. But I don't think Spotlight deserved to be Best Picture.
That said, this was otherwise a pretty good slate.
This is kind of arcane (who cares about documentaries anyway, right? Right?), but back in 2013 the best documentary award went to "Looking for Sugar Man", a completely banal piece about South Africans trying to learn more about an obscure American singer in the pre-Google era, over "The Invisible War", a hard-hitting report about rape in the US military.
What I'm trying to say is that it's easy (and thus, more Oscar-baity) to go "anti-Catholic" in 2016, but more uncomfortable to go "anti-USA military" in 2012 (or 2016!) or "here's this story about two gay cowboys" in 2005.
I saw Spotlight and The Revenant on consecutive nights
Revenant was a movie about a man being attacked by bears, natives and his comrades in the most gorgeous wilderness imaginable, and yet somehow still managed to bore me
Spotlight was about 5 people sitting at a desk, and was absolutely riveting
It's not an 'event' movie by any stretch of the imagination but it had the best writing and performances (from a large-ish ensemble no less) of any movie I saw this year
Very much deserved
Steam: adamjnet
Steam: adamjnet
Like said above, there were acting issues that keep Fury Road from grabbing any of the big 4, and that's fine. It was still a great movie and it took home more Oscar gold than anyone else.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
That said, the gala itself was fucking terrible. Completely unentertaining and weirdly amateurish, with atrocious camera work. For the first time ever, I found myself constantly glancing at my watch in boredom.
Tina Fey and Louis CK did manage to cheer me up briefly. And I loved Leo's speech.
I found Trumbo and its story of the anti communist sentiment of the Cold War and the black list more interesting.
Also it was funny at times.
This is maybe something that belongs more in the movie thread, but I'm still very confused about Trumbo. It's a movie about Communist protagonists being persecuted for their beliefs, but it's also a movie where the importance of self-determined work is vital and virtually every relationship is transactional/capitalist. I can't tell whether it's super clever or super insulting to make a movie about a real group of people that seems to believe the exact opposite of what they did. It's possible I'm wrong about the movie, probably more possible that I'm wrong about Communism. And the film does heavily imply that Trumbo himself was sort of halfway between the two points, a man whose ideals contrasted sharply with his pragmatic instincts. I dunno.
I dunno, I'd say George Miller deserved Best Director the most out of that crop. His shoot was longer, more at the mercy of the elements, involved more moving parts and he took all of it and put an entire genre on notice at the age of 70.
On a different note, Roger Deakins got fucking robbed.
Steam ID XBL: JohnnyChopsocky PSN:Stud_Beefpile WiiU:JohnnyChopsocky
Just because they believed in communism doesn't change the fact that they lived in a capitalist country. They still had to you know, go to work, to eat and live and support their families.
thats movie has such a perfect soundtrack
Not only was Miller's task super hard, but it wasn't an option to do it any other way. He filmed in the desert because he had to. He had ridiculously complicated effects work because it was the only way to get those shots.
He wasn't making arbitrary decisions to only use natural lighting, or starving himself to death and eating buffalo parts so he could be Super Method. Miller's difficulties weren't self imposed, so I respect those more. It's like a person juggling chainsaws while blindfolded versus a person juggling chainsaws who is actually blind.
Yea... the 3d gags there did not add any worth to the experience
https://www.fxguide.com/featured/a-graphic-tale-the-visual-effects-of-mad-max-fury-road/
How was it not even nominated for Best Original Screenplay?! You can argue that some ropey acting kept it from Best Picture, but the writing in that movie was gold.
TRUCK EXPLODES
CAR DRIVES REALLY FAST
CAR CRASHES INTO OTHER CAR
CARS EXPLODE
FURIOSA LOOKS FUCKING AWESOME
WAR BOY EXPLODES
It was a great film, but the screenplay wasn't Oscar caliber.
FLAMES SHOOT FROM GUITAR
is Oscar material.
Which is all well and fine, but the problem was that they were clearly going for the 3D gimmick of flying at the viewer's face. But, the fact that the shot was framed from so far away, and that the guitar got shot so far forward, that it crossed the uncanny valley (to me), because that guitar would have had to shoot a couple hundred yards in distance at least, which visually just doesn't make sense.
I would argue that, stylistically, if you take a practical shot, and make it look like really bad CGI, that's an even worse effects sin than simply using bad CGI to start with.
Really, I saw nothing wrong with the scene (I really enjoyed that the Doof Warrior got an epic sendoff). I would argue that it's just your subjective opinion on it, and I don't mean that in a dismissive way or anything. Having different opinions on a great movie is great!
Subjective, sure, but I agree. Since HBO has been showing the heck out of it lately I've watched Fury Road 4 times in the past week or so. I find myself unable to change the channel if I flip to it. And the visual effects at the end of that crash make that the single worst looking moment in the entire movie. I have to admit, I also thought it was lousy CGI. Knowing it was actually practical and reading about how much work when into it might actually make it worse for me.