Just when I thought I was done making Oscar posts,
Submitted by jim on Mon, 04/10/2000 - 10:55
Tags:
Just when I thought I was done making Oscar posts, I saw The Phantom Menace on our tiny little TV/crappy sound system last night. How on earth did The Matrix beat it for the special effects Oscar? Sure it was a better movie, but better effects? Insane. Unless they dropped in Keanu Reeve's entire performace via CGI (not that unbelievable :), the TPM folks got shafted. Almost as unjust as Tommy Lee Jones beating Ralph Feinnes whatever year that was. I can just hear the TPM guys now . . . "The Matrix?! I've written screensavers with better effects than The Matrix!"
What I heard about this is that the TPM guys used the same type of effect over and over, and that it wasn't that revolutionary. In other words, more effects and maybe even more impressive looking but same old same old. Versus in The Matrix they did things that haven't been used in movies heretofore and they used many different types of effects. Personally I would give it to The Matrix due to the way the effects fit seamlessly into the storyline without feeling like center stage, an interruption, or, well, an effect.
- Jenhowel
Hmmm. Perhaps. I would agree that The Matrix effects were less obtrusive. But for me it's hard to separate "better integrated effects" (which should be part of the award) and "it was just a better movie" (which it was, but that shouldn't be part of the award). I would say TPM suffered more from weak pacing than from the special effects failing to hold up their end of the bargain.
What effects in The Matrix haven't been used before? I can't think of anything that wasn't a variation of other stuff I've seen.
I'm not a special effects guy, so I don't know what constitutes a revolutionary effect these days. However, the only thing I can think of that might count would be Jar Jar (annoying as he was to us grown-ups). Probably the most realistic (but not perfect) full-CGI character to date. Really, the whole movie was one big special effect, with tons of non-existent stuff floating around the set in a fairly seamless fashion. And unlike The Matrix special effects, which were always on display in the foreground, TPM effects even filled the background. TPM had CGI extras, fer cryin' out loud! Effects you don't even notice because you're too busy concentrating on the effect right in front of your face (editorial "you").
I would definitely give a "Best Concept" Oscar to The Matrix, but you've still got some convincing to do before I believe TPM didn't get robbed in the F/X department.
And I'm not even a Star Wars junkie - after all, I waited for it on tape. :)
Jim, you said it yourself: you're not a special effects guy. Your argument is that you were more impressed by the TPM fx than those of TM - as was I (see my comments in my list "Recently Seen Movies" [bertie, make a link you lazy sod!]) - but our being impressed is irrelevent. The award is given for technical achievement, not for popularity, and we must assume that TM's effects are technically superior, or more innovative.
Mmmmm, I dunno. I am uncomfortable assuming that TM's effects were technically superior. Do you know if the f/x judges are f/x experts, or just the same group of film-industry judges that pick all the other categories as well? My guess (and it is just a guess) is that the same Oscar judges vote across all categories, rather than having a different set of judges for each award. But I could be wrong. But unless the f/x judges are qualified to work in that field, I wouldn't say their opinion is much more informed than that of any other reasonably astute viewer.
Maybe TM's stuff was innovative, but that slow-mo bullet effect (for example) that everyone raved about looked suspiciously like the old Abyss water tentacle effect, run on better hardware, with slightly different parameters (and with a bullet on the end of it).
If I recall correctly, the two things that were considered to be so incredibly innovative were (and bear with me here, I am no effects expert, so my terminology may be wacky).
1) The use of wires. The way they made leaps and bounds and wild martial arts moves because they were attached to wires.
2) The stop-action photography (is that what it's called?) How they would stop the picture and pan around it in a 3D like manner. It was also recently used in a TGIFridays commercial.
Now I'm not sure if these reasons are good enough (could #1 be considered more of a choreography feat?) but I do give them credit for being more seamless and believeable, instead of so...map painting-ish.
Ok, #2 in particular was pretty darn cool, and I don't recall having seen that before. And I'd award points for seamlessness as well, especially where the backgrounds are concerned.
I'm not saying I'm converted, but I no longer feel this was quite as unjust as the whole "Tommy Lee Jones beating Ralph Fiennes" thing. :)
You may be right. I wonder how Matrix got it then? I may have spoken too hastily, as I don't know that much about effects either. Maybe everyone's just sick of Lucas.
:-) That was my theory. "If I have to give one more f/x award to ILM, I'll poke out my own eyes."