Guardians of the Galaxy Did Guardians Just Steal The Ape's FX Oscar?

Marvel

Sidekick
Joined
Oct 7, 2010
Messages
1,603
Reaction score
3
Points
33
After seeing Dawn of the Planet of the Apes most film experts were giving the Effects Oscar to them. I know I was in that camp. Now that I've seen Guardians, I'm not so sure it's warranted.

Yes. Caesar was amazing but the Ape motion capture CGI is the only slice that the film offers. In Guardians, one could argue that Rocket and Groot are just as compelling and just as amazing as Caesar/Koba. Then, add all the stunning space opera work and those visuals and I could easily vote Guardians over Apes. Guardians has 100 times the action and FX shots and all of them are masterfully executed. I thought Thor The Dark World had some amazing visuals but this film hits the next level.

And I didn't even see it in IMAX. I can't wait to do that next.
 
...
 
Last edited:
It definitely deserves a nomination. Rocket and Groot are stunning achievements, just like the Apes.
 
Both should be nominated I think. Probably toss Hobbit 3 in there and there's your nominee list.
 
Apes should win. The effects were so good that by the end you forgot they weren't real.
 
This movie should have noms in sound, costumes, fx, and cinematography.
 
I think the film looked great, CGI Gray Fog Monster aside. That being said, it is no Apes in terms of CGI.

And in terms of cinematography, while I do like it a lot, I have seen more then a few films better in that regard already this year. Off the top of my head, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Lego Movie, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, Edge of Tomorrow, and The Winter Soldier.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is like miles ahead. Miles.
 
Nominations buddy, nominations. :)

And yes, Grand Budapest was beautiful.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, Apes had better CGI. However, I loved the costume design in this movie. It was fantastic and hope it gets a nom there (along with CGI of course).
 
Oh my bad then. I thought they had expanded the number of noms. For some reason i was thinking 10.
Actually you might be right. I thought it was only for Best Picture, but I honestly don't know. In that case, it might just sneak in. :cwink:
 
If Rocket wants it more than Caesar, he's gonna get it.
 
Didn't Gravity just win for best cinematography? And that was almost all CGI. Still beautiful

Gravity also had great sets and the beautiful shot on Earth at the end.

The CGI for gravity was meant to be photo-realistic, you couldn't tell it was fake and even astronauts approved. It's also the first modern blockbuster to use 3D visualisation as a narrative device and not just to look cool.
 
Gravity also had great sets and the beautiful shot on Earth at the end.

The CGI for gravity was meant to be photo-realistic, you couldn't tell it was fake and even astronauts approved. It's also the first modern blockbuster to use 3D visualisation as a narrative device and not just to look cool.
Wait what? Films use CG as a narrative device all the time. And not just to look cool. Stuff like Guardians just happens to be set in a more colorful space than Gravity was. I'm not sure I understand what Gravity did that no modern blockbuster hadn't done.
I loved Gravity though. That was a beautiful movie.
 
While the effects in this are solid, I still lean towards Apes on that front.
 
Gravity also had great sets and the beautiful shot on Earth at the end.

The CGI for gravity was meant to be photo-realistic, you couldn't tell it was fake and even astronauts approved. It's also the first modern blockbuster to use 3D visualisation as a narrative device and not just to look cool.

Its still about a 85-90% CGI film. Its gotten to the point where I don't really understand why cg animated films are ineligible.
 
Wait what? Films use CG as a narrative device all the time. And not just to look cool. Stuff like Guardians just happens to be set in a more colorful space than Gravity was. I'm not sure I understand what Gravity did that no modern blockbuster hadn't done.
I loved Gravity though. That was a beautiful movie.

Gravity used 3D specifically (not just CGI) as a narrative device, the motion of objects was actually important to the story in Gravity (which is about life cycles and rebirth), it didn't just look cool like a sword or a bullet popping out of the screen.

The way things are moving around in Gravity informs the sense of danger. It's a better story in 3D, not just a better-looking story.
 
The CGI in this was used for world building, mise en scene. To immerse us in this universe. Not just to look cool. I don't mean the CGI characters or ships etc. But the vistas and locations. I mean, that shot when they arrive at Knowhere with David Bowie playing... wow. I don't think there are many better shots this year.

There was also a surprising amount of practical effects. And a lot of the sets were actually built, not just green screened.

I think it's better cinematography than the likes of Winter Soldier or Edge of Tomorrow.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"