OK so a list of 10 films has been provided as the nominees for the Oscar's for Best Visual Effects. Now majority of the nominated films I have no problem with - here they are (no particular order):

Gravity

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Pacific Rim

Elysium

Iron Man 3

The Lone Ranger

Oblivion

Star Trek Into Darkness

Thor: The Dark World

World War Z

OK - so the list is solid - no denying that - but where int eh name of all tings sacred is MoS? Especially when they're going to put in something like The Lone Ranger? Seriously?!?!?

Anyone who read my blog knows I was a little disappointed with Thor: TDW - minor quibbles with it personally - but that was me. I also was a little disappointed with Pacific Rim - only because it felt like they did the Godzilla trick. Basically this is where all your monsters/CGI is done at night/in the dark and in water/rain. This reduces the texturing requirements to make things look more realistic without the same amount of effort. It still looked awesome - no question - but a shortcut like that for me - and it's just my opinion - takes away from the skill and impressiveness.

Anyone else got thoughts on this.... or even care at all? AM I the only one?

I'm noticing an odd lack of Man of Steel.

yep.

snubbed.

OK - something is wayyy wrong. Twice now I've done this post with way more than just the list - but it's not showing up at all..... WTH?

ok - never mind - it's showing up now..... weird....

If Spider Man 2 gets nominated next year we will know that someone is doing crack back there.

Having not-seen The Hobbit yet(plan to when its release) I'm pretty sure Gravity is going to win.

Still, MoS should have been nominated. No question.

Critical reception of MoS was poorer than the majority of those films (except maybe Lone Ranger?). Also the industry as a whole seems to have "issues" with Zack Snyder - wonder if there's some behind the scenes snobbery happening.... Or was it genuinely not as good as those films?

Need a less biased opinion on the matter... @tyrus - what say you? I know you're not biased towards MoS like I am so do think it's been left out fairly, or considering what HAS been included, MoS should really be there too?

That's complete BS that MOS isn't on there when WWZ is. WWZ had plain bad CGI.

This list... is making me.... mad

I literally faceplmed when I saw the nominees...Seriously? Lone Ranger? Now I know it's on purpose.

What should be on the list-

MOS

Elysium- The scene were the guy took a grenade to the face

Hobbit- Judging by the trailer and my trust in John Capea

Gravity

Thor

The academy has been losing credibility to me recently by decisions such as giving the Best Animated oscar to Brave instead of Wreck It Ralph and not nominating TDKR for ANY awards. This is just the final nail in the coffin.

what the heck

The "interesting" thing is the Visual Effects category has special rules that make it's nomination and voting work differently to other categories. I fail to think that those responsible saw The Lone Ranger and felt it's visual effects were better than MoS..... I just.... I mean... I'm losing my words....

@wishiwassuperman: they did it on purpose.

World War Z? Gravity is obviously going to win, because that's the movie they will choose. MoS exclusion is BS, World War Z looked awful.

@gor724: Please don't post GIF's with the f-bomb on them, it's considered the same as typing it in the forums, which is prohibited. Thanks :)

Guess no one thinks flying(something's wrong with the world) and real super powered beings going at it in stead of facing a crappy alien army(looking at you avengers) looks cool anymore....has it ever been done this way before-no, was it totally exhilarating-yes. Why it doesn't qualify- Something's really wrong with the world.

It's not the first time i'm seeing this news but i actually laughed when i first saw it....

P.S- To the academy, Zod and all the kryptonian's armor was cgi,the entire krypton scene,jor-el's battle armor. I mean seriously, my parents and most of my friends thought those suits were real. I knew they were cgi but acually forgot for a bit while watching the blu-ray at home.

Atleast Gravity is in there,if that doesn't win.....

@ultimatesmfan: the other big contender to me is Hobbit:DoS... But that's just a guess so far since I haven't seen it. Those films always do well with the academy though

Yeah I notice that too. TDKR also got the same snub. But Lone Ranger huh? Okay I want Gravity to win then.

Haven't watched Lone Ranger and WWZ but MoS's visuals were as good as TDW if not better, too bad it didn't get any nominations, anyways Gravity FTW.

Pardon for asking this but isn't the VE prize a combination of things like CGI, costume, makeup, props and all the other things we see the actors wear and use on screen?

If that's the case then yeah the CGI in MoS were very good, but I have to say that I don't think the Kryptonian's armor or the inside of their ships looked all that great when you got a good look at them.

So, let me get this straight.

If Pacific Rim on the list, MOS should be there as well by default IMO. Something already very wrong with this picture.

Later things getting even more interesting. Lone Ranger and WWZ – these are on the list… How that happened?

… What is this smell? There is some serious BS behind curtains of Academy.

You are kidding me?????????? the suits were CGI??????

@black_arrow: If you're being sarcastic, i'm not a fan of that if you're being serious then YEAH THEY WERE!!!!!!! It was so weird seeing the behind the scenes footage on the blu-ray when they're wearing shirts and pants with all these sticker/markings all over them and then seeing the final product where its all cgi'd onto them. Also Henry's cape was cgi for like 90% of the movie.

....unbelievable... that is all...

Something is wrong with the world because your favorite movie didn't get nominated? U wot m8?

No, something is wrong when one of the clearly greatest visual spectacles of the year - even if you didn't like the story or plot execution - is snubbed and replaced by The Lone Ranger or WWZ (which I personally liked, but frankly was not great CGI).

There seems to be something against Zack Snyder and his team. They rarely get nominated and when they do and should win, they never do..... or maybe the critics just hate cbm's for some reason. They need some more imagination.

Snubs happen all the time. You don't see anyone else saying the sky is falling when they are snubbed. You lot are overreacting.

Lots of crap stuff happens all the time. Doesn't make it easier to choke down though. And while I can't speak for anyone but myself, I do frankly find it unbelievable. Not sure how that's overreacting.

Because something is wrong with the world because MOS didn't get a nomination. If that's not overreacting, then I don't know what is. And jeez, not like you have to "choke" it down. You guys are way to attached to this.

Did i say anything about man of steel being my favorite movie or me going all fanboy crazy over it, don't read too much into anything mate. what i meant with that statement is that who doesn't want to fly or who wouldn't like witnessing something like that?? And IMO which i'm not alone in thinking this way is that the flying in MOS was one of the if not the best flying effects in a movie thats all....If we've gotten to the point where a spectacle like that isn't appreciated then yea to me there is something wrong with us,had nothing to do with nominations.

When did I say anything about the world being wrong? And to "choke" it down means accepting it discontentedly. Still not sure what's overreacting.

Meh, the flying scene did nothing for me, and apparently i'm not the only one. The fact that you say that means something is "wrong" with people for not finding that as jaw dropping/inspiring as you did is the epitome of "going all fanboy crazy over it". In hindsight, it didn't help that you felt the need to take a jab at Avengers in the same post, which makes you look even more like a jellymad DC fanboy. Far as I can tell I've read you pretty well, mate. Besides, i'm pretty sure people are being desensitized to all this CGI being lambasted into our faces. But meh. You guys are way too attached to this.

The Lone Ranger beat MoS? The Lone Ranger?

That's your opinion on the flying scene then and if i think something looks cool im a crazy fanboy towards it? ok sure you can 'read' me.... Concerning Avengers, i didn't take a jab at the movie i took one at the fight sequences compared to MoS, i'd imagine maybe even you felt the chittauri didnt look like a credible threat seeing the way they were being taken out except for those big dragon things as compared to zod who was as powerful as the protagonist, but maybe not. Anyway maybe you're right, maybe people are being desensitized to cgi since it is so abundant but that doesn't take away from the fact that at the end of the day story be damned, acting be damned, Man of Steel was easily one of the best looking movies of the year,if absolutely nothing else that is the one thing that it has going for it. The fact that even that hasn't been recognized for whatever reason is causing so much of a stir.

Reminds me when The Curious Case of Benjamin Button won the special effects award over Iron Man.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said you came off as a "crazy fanboy" for saying something was "wrong" with others for not thinking it looked cool. However, I agree on the generic alien forces in Avengers. They were pretty terrible and fake looking, lol. But it is still passable. Now that anything can be done on a computer nothing is amazing anymore. There is no "How did they do that?? It looked so real!!" factor. Just, "Oh this looks p-cool I guess. Anyway, on to the next cgi fest". But I guess i'm getting off topic now. MOS just wasn't visually amazing to me. It looked like a video game during action sequences, specifically at key scenes such as the Supes vs. Terraformer (that tentacle thing) and Supes vs. Zod.

@mercy_: Oh sorry, I forgot about that for a second. Don't worry it wont happen again.

It could be all the obvious g green screen at the last part of the movie what it cost it the nomination.

@farkam: Here's the thing though - Gravity, Thor:TDK, IM3, Pacific Rim, The Hobbit:DoS, Star Trek:ID, Oblivion and Elysium were all CGI laden films - some massively so. That's not a knock on them by any stretch of the imagination - but when we're talking visual effects - they relied predominately on CGI for that purpose. So I don't think a desensitization to CGI is really an issue personally - or at least that's not how I interpret the information.

Also no one is saying MoS should even win the category - just that it should have had an acknowledgement via being nominated for the short list, especially over a film like The Lone Ranger, and obviously a lot of people feel World War Z too (I'm split on this one as I thought that was actually fairly well executed myself - except for the scene in Israel on the wall - they looked a bit plasticy and unnatural, but that often happens with animation of large groups of people like that, and there's been worse).

Yes... and at the same time kind of no. Make-up and Costume design are their own categories as well with their own rules - but of course these CAN play into the visual effects for a film where we're talking about say a zombie flick for example - which is where I think World War Z is getting it's nomination over say exclusively use of its CGI - but that's just a guess. As a general "rule" the understanding is that visual effects applies to the special effects required to get a particular look and things happening on screen. I mean - look at the nominations - almost all fantasy or (mostly) sci-fi, with only one notable exception.

The official criteria is just stated as:

• consideration of the contribution the visual effects make to the overall production and
• the artistry, skill and fidelity with which the visual illusions are achieved.

As we've moved into a CGI world, this has generally been where the academy is looking for this category, and allowing make-up and costume categories to account for those aspects. However you're opinions obviously vary to others or at least mine. The insides of the ships I thought were a mixture of set and CGI, and the Kryptonian armour was entirely CGI - which I did not know personally until I saw the behind the scenes featurettes on the Blu-ray - which made me even more impressed. Also comparatively to say Star Trek or Oblivion - I didn't find either of them particularly impressive on this front, and I've already said I had minor quibbles with Thor and felt that they "cheated" a bit on Pacific Rim. But yes - that's just my personal opinion as well - which carries absolutely no weight to anything.

Just a couple more general thoughts - the thing is, and why this stands out to me - is being as "objective" as possible in considering this, the one thing even people who hated the film seemed to say is that it was visually impressive. The special effects and things were easily considered by reviewers and fans and critics alike to be among the best of the year - at least at that point in time. Obviously not everyone would feel that way - but of the dozens of review videos, and dozens more written reviews I saw - that was a pretty constant thing - even here on CV in some of the heat threads and discussions I've had with people is an admittance of it being impressive visually. I also find it interesting that Zack Snyder himself - known for "stunning visuals" if nothing else (a common criticism is that he favours style over substance) has really struggled, even with films like 300 which again was a visual feast in my mind and was a large part of that films success - but still no Oscar nods... I've also seen this making news outlets (that he's been specifically "snubbed"), so maybe there is more to it than just fanboy ranting? Or maybe not... Keep in mind though, these are just a list of initial 10, that will be whittled down to 3 for the actual awards ceremony as nominees, where I think we'll see Gravity, and The Hobbit:DoS duke it out really. I don't see any of the list competing against those two in the eyes of the Academy. It's a toss up for the 3rd nominee I think between IM3 (due to popularity), Pacific Rim and Star Trek. World War Z might actually get there too (or, it wouldn't surprise me) - just because it was a surprise blockbuster AND it moves away form the Sci-Fi centric nature of the majority of the list, which is being represented by Gravity, so it's "diversity" tot he category. But that's just my guess to the final 3.

@wishiwassuperman

World War Z had atrocious CGI if you ask me.

Not exactly the crux of my point - but ok....

Meh, I've pretty much said what I had to say about this MOS stuff.

@akindoodle said:

The Lone Ranger beat MoS? The Lone Ranger?

I'm not suprised. Man of steel had garbage CG.

#1. They sped up some frames here and there for the fight secens so it looks like someone pressed the fast forwrd button instead showing Superman throwing fast and furious punches.

Why didn't they blur the arm and fist the tiniest bit near the begining of the punch, blur it a lot when the punch is at its peak which is when its almost fully extended and then show it completely clear when the arm and fist are fully extended. Wouldn' that be a good way to show how the punch accelearates a little bit? Its done in animation all the time.

#2. It looks like they had a problem with lighting and texture as well. It wasn't as good as Life of Pi or The Avengers, that's for sure.

@dum529001: You missed the fact that I was emphasizing the Lone Ranger not Man of Steel

@dum529001: MOS had great CGI. Maybe the last part had some problems. But the rest of the movie was alright. Certainly better than the garbage that is Lone Ranger and WWZ.